Everywhere you look there are lots of recommendations offered for how to support personalized learning in the workplace. When talking about ways to engage your learning audience with instructional design, learning styles have emerged as one of the more prominent concepts. While learning styles have gained popularity and have been widely advocated, it is essential to critically examine the evidence supporting their efficacy and recognize the ongoing debate within the educational community regarding their validity. I will offer the disclaimer that I do not endorse learning styles. I intend to debunk the learning styles myth and offer other ways L&D professionals can meaningfully engage their learners through instruction.

A learning style is a theoretical concept that suggests individuals have preferred ways of acquiring and processing information. Proponents of learning styles believe that individuals have their own style when it comes to learning and will experience significant challenges if presented with instructional content that is not presented in a particular format that is conducive to that style. Learning styles are often categorized into three main types:

1. Visual Learners: Prefer using images, charts, graphs, and other visual aids to understand information. They may benefit from seeing information presented in a graphical or spatial format.
2. Auditory Learners: Prefer learning through activities that verbal recitation, music, or sound effects.
3. Kinesthetic Learners: Learn by doing and prefer hands-on experiences. They may benefit from physical activities, interactive simulations, or other tactile learning methods.

If you were to take a moment and reflect on different tasks you have been trained to you in the past year, could you make the bold statement that you were only capable of learning if it was presented in one format? You will more than likely find yourself answering this question by saying, “It all depends.” While we may have preferences for how information is presented to us, it is important to note that different learning outcomes call for different instructional design methods.

Many educational psychologists and instructional designers are proponents of cognitive load theory as opposed to learning styles. Cognitive Load Theory emphasizes the importance of aligning instructional methods with the nature of the content being taught. By focusing on the inherent complexity of the material, L&D professionals can tailor their approaches to manage cognitive load effectively. This approach provides a more nuanced and adaptive perspective, guiding L&D professionals to tailor their instructional methods based on the inherent cognitive demands of the subject matter, ultimately promoting more effective learning outcomes.

Despite its widespread acceptance, researchers have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support learning styles, the idea that tailoring instruction to match individual learning styles significantly enhances learning outcomes. Many attempts to validate learning styles have suffered from methodological flaws, leading to inconclusive or inconsistent results. Consequently, the scientific community remains cautious about endorsing learning styles as a reliable framework for educational practice.

The concept of learning styles oversimplifies the intricate nature of human learning. Cognitive processes are multifaceted and often influenced by a variety of factors related to motivation and context. Individuals often adapt their learning strategies based on the demands of the task at hand. This challenges the idea that they possess fixed, identifiable learning styles. Recognizing the dynamic and complex nature of learning emphasizes the need for a more flexible and evidence-based approach to instructional design.

Educators and researchers have increasingly moved toward a more holistic understanding of individual differences in learning preferences. Recognizing the complexity of learning and acknowledging that people may adapt their learning strategies based on context has led to a shift away from the rigid categorization of learning styles in favor of a more flexible and evidence-based approach to education. Keeping this in mind, there are other ways L&D professionals can work to engage their learning audiences and provide them with personalized content.

To enhance personalized learning, educators should consider a holistic approach that recognizes individual differences while prioritizing evidence-based instructional strategies over rigid categorizations of learning styles. L&D professionals should focus on fostering self-regulated learning through strategies like goal-setting. Well-defined goals serve as motivation, guide learners toward specific milestones, and provide measurable benchmarks for tracking progress. L&D professionals can enhance the personalized learning experience by breaking down goals into manageable tasks, incorporating positive reinforcement, encouraging reflective practice, allowing flexibility, and celebrating accomplishments throughout the learning journey.

As the debate surrounding the legitimacy of learning styles persists, L&D professionals should focus on understanding the diverse cognitive processes and preferences of learners within the broader context of educational research. Learners are more apt to find training to be engaging when presented with activities that promote active learning, varied modalities, and flexible assessment methods.

If you want to hear about other common adult learning myths and misconceptions, join myself and a panel of Litmos learning experts  on Tuesday, March 12 at 12:00 PM ET for Litmos Learning Break: Mythbusting Common Learning Misconceptions – a live discussion that explores the truth behind popular learning myths.