L & D learning styles: it’s time to withdraw myth

Learning styles: the lasting myth that weakens L&D

In learning and development circles, it is common to hear sentences like:

1. “We have to adapt this to visual learners.”
2. “It is more a kinesthetic type, so let's build an activity.”
3. “We want to cover all learning styles to be inclusive.”

It seems reflected, even centered on the learner. But there is a problem: nothing improves learning results.

The idea of “learning styles” – that individuals learn better when teaching corresponds to their personal sensory preferences – has existed for decades. But research has shown several times that this approach is not supported by scientific evidence. Worse, continuing to use it can reduce the impact of the program, waste design time and L&D credibility within the company. If L&D is serious about the conduct of performance and commercial results, it is time to stop designing for preferences and starting to design the way people really learn.

What research really says

The “hypothesis of learning styles” suggests that people preferred learning modes – visuals, hearing, kinesthetic, etc. – and that the instruction must be adapted to these preferences for optimal learning. But this idea failed to resist a meticulous examination.

In 2008, a major journal led by the cognitive psychologist Harold Pashler concluded: “There is no adequate evidence to justify the integration of assessments of learning styles in general educational practice.” Subsequent meta-analyzes and replications have supported it. While people certainly have preferences, adaptation of teaching to correspond to these preferences has no measurable effect on learning performance.

Here is why:

1. Favorite styles do not necessarily reflect cognitive forces.
2. Teaching correspondence to a style does not improve understanding or retention.
3. The type of content – not the learner's preference – should lead the educational modality.

For example, learning to repair an engine can benefit from visual diagrams and practical handling, regardless of the learner's “style”. Preferences can influence commitment, but they do not influence the effectiveness of learning.

Why the myth of learning styles persists

Despite the generalized demystification, learning styles are always mentioned in training requests, Elearning conceptions and even university programs. So why does myth last?

• It's intuitive
  Everyone has preferences, and it is easy to assume that these preferences should dictate learning. But as any coach knows, comfort is not always where growth occurs.
• It signals customization
  At a time of design centered on the learner, organizations want to show that they adapt to individual needs. Learning styles seem to be an easy way to “check the box” – even if they lack the brand.
• It's easy to understand
  Compared to models such as cognitive charge theory or recovery practice, learning styles are simple and catchy. This simplicity makes them easier to explain to stakeholders, even if they are inaccurate.

Unfortunately, continue to rely on learning styles creates a false feeling of personalization while diverting energy from practices based on evidence that really improve learning results.

The real cost of the design of L&D for learning styles

Learning styles may seem harmless, but they have a cost:

1. Design the ineffectiveness

Educational designers can create several redundant formats for each “style”, leading to swollen development deadlines and unnecessary complexity.

2. Reduced educational impact

The designers spend time adapting to preferences instead of aligning content with task requirements or cognitive processes, undermining efficiency.

3. Meals poorly oriented

The effort is devoted to the evaluation of styles, to the design of tailor -made materials and to the justification of choices that have no proven return to learning.

4. Professional credibility weakened

As L&D targets a greater strategic influence, it must be based on research. Hang the demystified models undermines our legitimacy in the eyes of executives, business partners and employees who are informed of learning.

What to do instead: 6 principles based on evidence

Dropping the learning styles does not mean ignoring the diversity of learners. This means designing to improve retention, understanding and transfer. Here are six alternatives to stimulate the real impact:

1. Design for cognitive load

The overload of working memory interferes with learning. Divide the content into manageable pieces, reduce foreign elements and use strategically visual and auditory inputs (not based on the learner's preference).

2. Use double coding and the principle of modality

Combine visuals and narration to improve understanding (and not text and narration, which can divide attention). Use the content -based modality – EG, animations for the process, text for definition – not individual preference.

3. Prioritize previous knowledge

Adjust the difficulty and support according to what learners already know. Novices need examples has worked; Experts benefit from problem solving. This leads to better performance results that style correspondence could never.

4. Support active recovery and spaced practice

Use quiz, branching of scenarios and the reflection of the real world to invite recovery of memory. The intervals spaced between learning and examination sessions considerably increase retention.

5. Create psychological relevance

Connect learning to the context, the identity and the role of the learner. The motivation and the sense of attention and the transfer of fuel, much more than the alignment of the modality.

6. Design for transfer, not just commitment

Practice, feedback and reinforcement of the real world are greater than style adjustment. Build clues, habit and monitoring of the manager in the design of a sustained change in behavior.

How to keep your organization away from myth

The transition of your team or your organization far from learning styles can take more than just a note. Here are practical strategies to manage this change:

1. educate stakeholders

Share short and supported articles or infographics of evidence explaining research. Avoid shame; Focus on the better alternative watch.

2. Audit of existing programs

Identify where learning styles are integrated into forms of intake, models or Elearning constructions. Replace them with questions about the context, barriers and performance conditions.

3. Use commercial language

Frame your argument in terms of efficiency, efficiency and return to effort. The stakeholders respond to the results, not the theories.

4. Pilot a change in a program

Rethink a course with the principles of cognitive sciences. Measure the results and share them widely. Real examples are more convincing than academic quotes.

Final thought: L&D deserves better

Learning and development are changing. Our headquarters at the strategic table depends on credibility, evidence and results. Continue to rely on myths like learning styles send the bad message to our discipline.

The good news? When we move obsolete models, we open a space for innovation – directed by science, not the habit. An excellent learning design is not to respond to preferences. It is a question of aligning yourself with the way people learn, change and grow. And this is where L&D shines the brightest.