You’re Not a Visual Learner (Here’s Why Psychologists Say That’s a Good Thing)

“You’re a visual learner, Harry”

Learning style theories have an almost magical status within the education system, with one review finding that 89.1% of educators believe in their use¹. At their core, learning style theories aim to identify differences in how people prefer to process, understand and retain information. The idea being that if we match the way information is presented to the way people prefer to learn, they’ll have a much easier time retaining that information. But there’s a catch.

One of the most popular learning style theories that you’re likely to bump into is the VARK, which categorises learners into:

• Visual (People who learn best by visual representation e.g. via mindmaps or diagrams)

• Aural (People who learn best by listening & speaking e.g. via discussions or podcasts)

• Read/write (People who learn best through written word (e.g. via books or note taking)

• Kinaesthetic (People who learn best by hands-on activities e.g via experiments or roleplaying)

Learning styles have a lot of intuitive appeal. After all, those categories make a lot of logical sense. The catch?

Psychologists have found that matching content to your learning style doesn’t work and, at worst, can actually make you learn less².

So why is something so intuitively appealing so bad at supporting learning? Well, it turns out there are actually a number of reasons why learning style theories fall short. Let’s take a look at 3 key reasons cited within the Psychological literature³.

They Don’t Explain WHY Someone Has the Learning Style That They Do

Let’s return to the VARK. This particular learning style theory suggests that there are four different types of learners; visual, aural, read/write and kinaesthetic. That’s all well and good but the theory doesn’t actually explain how these four styles emerge. Why would one person become a visual learner and another not? What are the underlying brain mechanisms that mean someone can process information more effectively if it’s presented in a diagram or not? Learning style theories often struggle to explain these differences without tapping into other, more coherent, strands of Psychological research.

In essence, learning style theories are like a less insightful version of the sorting hat in Harry Potter. Both can tell you which category you belong in but at least the sorting hat gives you some kind of explanation as to why.

They Over-simplify the Learning Experience

Learning is often a multi-sensory experience. Think back to your most vivid memories. Chances are you can visualise the scene, hear the sounds, perhaps even recall a particular smell. It’s this combination of sensory information that helps to stitch together those memories and make them easier to recall. Psychological research has shown that activation of multiple sensory representations (e.g. exploring a concept both verbally and visually) leads to better learning across a range of different subjects⁴ ⁵.

In general, the more sensory representations activated, the better the learning.

The irony is that by trying the help people learn efficiently through focussing on one type of content, learning style theories have actually stripped away the wider contextual information that can make it easier to learn.

They Can Artificially Force You into a Particular Learning Style

Some learning style questionnaires use a subtle, and arguably sneaky, approach to ensure that everyone comes out with a clear learning style preference. The trick? The tests use something known as rank ordering. Rather than asking someone how much they agree or disagree with a particular learning style statement (which would allow you to say ‘actually, I don’t think any of these styles match me’ or ‘actually, they all pretty much sound like me’), they ask individuals to rank them in order of preference.

Let’s take a look at a (very) unscientific example to clarify the point.

Rank the following four words in order of preference:

• Coat

• Apple

• Photograph

• Table

Chances are, unless you have a particular affinity to any of these objects, you didn’t really have a strong preference for any of them. However, when asked to rank them it makes it SEEM as though you have a stronger preference because the question forces to put something at the top of your list. If we’d instead asked something like:

On a scale of 1–5 (1 being extremely unlikely and 5 being extremely likely), rate how likely you are to say the following are your favourite words:

• Coat

• Apple

• Photograph

• Table

This time round, again unless you have a particular affinity to any of these words, you likely rated them all pretty low. Such a result could be problematic for a learning styles theory. Afterall, if a person completes a learning styles questionnaire and finds out that none of the learning styles match their preferences that could raise some uncomfortable questions about the quality of the theory that test was based on.

Across the Psychological literature there is compelling evidence that, at best, learning style theories don’t work and at worst, can actually harm an individual’s ability to learn. Despite this, learning style questionnaires and teaching methods remain stubbornly persistent across classrooms and workshops worldwide.

To get the most out of any learning experience, it is important for learners to not limit themselves by only engaging with content in formats dictated by their ‘learning style’. Instead, by exploring information through a variety of modalities individuals can create an enriching learning experience and increase the likelihood of retaining the information that they are seeking to learn.

Dr. Anthony Thompson

References

1. Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How common is belief in the learning styles neuromyth, and does it matter? A pragmatic systematic review. In Frontiers in Education (p. 270). Frontiers.

2. Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171.

3. An, D., & Carr, M. (2017). Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achievement: Recommendations for alternative approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 410–416.

4. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2004). The role of working memory in mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 353–386.

5. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities 1976 to 1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18(4), 198–213.