Why 'learning styles' and other myths refuse to die
Thoughts on a popular misconception about learning
In my last Dispatch, one of the ‘missing links’ I shared was an episode of The Ezra Klein Show, exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on education.
As regular readers and podcast-listeners will know, I have a bit of a nerd-crush on Ezra Klein.
Listening to his episode with Rebecca Winthrop, my two immediate reactions were: i) ‘This is really interesting!’; and ii) ‘It’s kind of annoying that this politics reporter is better at hosting a learning podcast than I am!’.
And then, Ezra made the following statement:
‘It’s pretty hard to do personalized learning, even if you have examples that you’ve seen work, because you have one teacher for a classroom of 20, 30 kids oftentimes.
But A.I. makes this completely different. A.I. gives you more tutors than there are children. It allows you to have tutors who adapt to that kid’s individual learning style in any way you want it to, in any way they want it to.
If this kid is a visual learner, A.I. can do visual learning. If pop quizzes are helpful for them, they can do pop quizzes. A.I. can turn it into a podcast they listen to if you are more audio focused. Everything can be turned into a poem if you absorb information better through the sonnet form.’
Oh, Ezra. Dear, sweet Ezra. He’d fallen into the ‘learning styles’ trap.
And he’s not alone.
Even amongst people who should know better, there remains a widespread belief that aligning instruction to a student’s ‘style’ improves outcomes. According to a systematic review of 37 studies, roughly 89% of educators believe in the theory.
Despite the popularity of learning styles, research has generally failed to establish its validity when applied to education.
In other words, while you might have a preference for certain modes of instruction, this doesn’t translate into more effective learning.
So, why does learning styles retain such a hold on the popular imagination?
On the one hand, it’s reasonable to assume that most people are simply unaware of the arguments against the theory.
But another, arguably more compelling argument is that learning styles feels true at an emotional level. (If you’ve ever tried to challenge someone’s assertion that they’re a ‘visual learner’, you’ll know how powerful these emotions can be.)
People do have genuine preferences for different types of instruction, and it can be easy to confuse the experience of engagement for the experience of learning.
The same goes for the myth that humans now have goldfish-like attention spans.
People feel the constant assault on their attention from social media, news, and instant messaging, so are predisposed to believe their capacity for focus has diminished.
There was a time when, confronted by a stranger’s belief in learning styles, goldfishy attention spans, or the 10,000-hour rule, I would have felt duty-bound to point out the error of their ways.
Now, as a result of experience, I usually just bite my tongue, let it slide, then write a newsletter about it for all the cool kids who will validate my ‘Well, actually…’ tendencies. Thanks for that!
Want to share your thoughts on The L&D Dispatch? Then get in touch by emailing custom@mindtools.com or reply to this newsletter from your inbox.
🎧 On the podcast
Armed with a STEM qualification or two, you might think technical brilliance is all one needs to succeed in the space sector. Is this the case, though?
In last week’s episode of The Mindtools L&D Podcast, Ross G and Anna were joined by Victoria Craig to discuss:
the importance of ‘soft’ skills in a ‘hard’ science environment;
sector-specific skills gaps;
how L&D can bridge these gaps.
Check out the episode below. 👇
You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Spotify or the podcast page of our website. Want to share your thoughts? Get in touch @RossDickieMT, @RossGarnerMT or #MindToolsPodcast
📖 Deep dive — Manager Skills Framework (9 of 12)
This week, we’re sharing the ninth instalment in our series exploring the 12 core skills in the Manager Skills Framework. Let’s talk about transparent communication – and why it matters.
In a recent study, researchers Lee and Dong (2023) explored how different sources of internal communication – CEOs, supervisors, and peers – impacted a powerful behavioural outcome: employee advocacy.
It’s helpful to think of employee advocacy as “positive megaphoning” – when employees speak positively about their organization, both externally and internally. Employee advocacy is considered to be one of the most cost-effective ways to strengthen a company’s reputation. But it's not just good PR. It’s also shown to boost engagement, productivity, and trust among peers.
Lee and Dong break transparent communication into three key components:
🔍 Informational substantiality – Is the information being shared truthful, useful, and detailed?
🗣 Participation – Are employees consulted about their informational needs and concerns?
📉 Accountability – Are both successes and failures being shared honestly?
In a survey of 403 US-based managers and non-managers, they found something noteworthy: while CEOs and peers matter, managers were the only ones to have a direct and significant impact on two important outcomes:
The strength of employee-organization relationships (including trust, mutual respect and commitment)
Employee empowerment
Together, these outcomes predicted whether employees would become active advocates for their organization.
So, if you're a manager wondering whether it’s absolutely necessary to communicate transparently with your people – even when the news isn’t entirely good – the answer is a resounding yes.
Lee, Y., & Dong, E. (2023). How transparent internal communication from CEO, supervisors, and peers leads to employee advocacy. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(4), 878–912.
👹 Missing links
🦦 The Recent History of AI in 32 Otters
Over the last two years, Ethan Mollick has been using various AI image generators to create pictures of otters. He chose otters because they’re his daughter’s favorite animal, but what started as a bit of fun has become a kind of benchmark. In this article, he shares examples of the otters he’s generated using AI, and explains how the capabilities of systems like Midjourney and ChatGPT have evolved over time.
🤖 How Often is AI Depicted in Movies, and How Frequently is it the Villain?
Movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Terminator are often used to represent contemporary fears over artificial intelligence. But are these films truly representative of Hollywood’s views on AI? For a recent edition of his newsletter Stat Significant, Daniel Parris trained a model to parse over 24,000 Wikipedia movie summaries, determining how many of these movies featured AI, and how each movie portrayed the AI’s relationship with humanity. If you’re a data/cinema/AI nerd like me, this will be right up your street.
🍌 What end would you open a banana from?
In the most important news of the week, YouGov recently surveyed nearly 9,000 US adults on how they open bananas, what color they prefer the peel to be when they eat them, and whether they think it’s acceptable to break off a single banana from a bunch at a supermarket. The results show that 72% of Americans open bananas from the end with the stem. To put my cards on the table, that means 72% of Americans are wrong.
👋 And finally…
Satellite imagery captures Earth’s ‘pulse’ by measuring solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence.
👍 Thanks!
Thanks for reading The L&D Dispatch from Mind Tools! If you’d like to speak to us, work with us, or make a suggestion, you can email custom@mindtools.com.
Or just hit reply to this email!
Hey here’s a thing! If you’ve reached all the way to the end of this newsletter, then you must really love it!
Why not share that love by hitting the button below, or just forward it to a friend?