Do Different Learning Styles Work for Auditory and Visual Learners?

Why learning styles were previously considered a neuromyth

The most common version of the classification of learning styles divides people into auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learners, based on their preferred ways of perceiving information. Each person has an optimal learning style, which depends on their perception modality. Auditory learners absorb information better by listening, so podcasts and audio lectures are suitable for them. Visual learners prefer images, videos, and diagrams, which helps them better understand the material. Verbal learners, in turn, focus on texts and written explanations. Kinesthetic learners learn through motor and tactile experience, which allows them to actively interact with the material. This classification helps identify individual learning preferences and adapt educational methods to achieve the best results.

Proponents of the concept argue that learning becomes more effective when the format of the learning material matches the individual's style of information perception. Auditory learners, for example, remember information better through listening, while visual learners absorb knowledge more effectively when studying graphic materials, such as mind maps. The correct approach to choosing a learning format can significantly improve the effectiveness of learning material and promote a deeper understanding of the topic.

Skillbox Media discusses the problem of dividing people into groups based on their learning styles. In this article, we will briefly summarize the main aspects of this issue. This concept has no theoretical basis from a neurobiological perspective, since the networks of neurons in the brain cannot be clearly divided into those responsible exclusively for visual or auditory perception. They are all interconnected through general attention and working memory networks that process information from all the senses. Thus, the approach to learning based on classifying people by learning styles is neither theoretically nor empirically supported.

There is no scientific evidence for preferred learning styles. For example, people may consider themselves visual learners, but experiments show that they actually do not explicitly prefer visual information, but prefer a variety of formats. This suggests that information perception may be more complex than simply categorizing learning styles.

Follow our content and stay up to date with current topics. We offer interesting articles and useful tips to help you better navigate your chosen field. Don't miss the opportunity to gain valuable knowledge and recommendations. Subscribe to updates and stay in touch.

The myth that "the brain only works at 10%" is one of the most common misconceptions. In fact, modern research shows that virtually all parts of the brain are active at different times. The brain is a complex organ that uses different areas to perform a variety of functions, from processing information to controlling movement.

Other unscientific neuromyths include the assertion that the adult brain cannot change, the myth that we use only one hemisphere of the brain, and the misconception that mental ability depends solely on genetics. These myths distort our understanding of how the brain works and can negatively impact approaches to learning and development.

It's important to dispel these myths and rely on scientific evidence to better understand how our brains function and how we can develop our cognitive abilities. Misconceptions about the brain can hinder personal growth and learning, so it's worth paying attention to current research in this area.

The main problem that has led to the concept of learning styles being considered a neuromyth is the lack of convincing evidence that matching a learning format to an individual's learning style actually improves learning outcomes. To confirm this effect, multi-step experiments are needed that could objectively evaluate the impact of different approaches on the effectiveness of material assimilation.

First, the learning styles of the participants would be determined;
Then, participants with the same learning style would be randomly assigned to groups in which they would study in a format suitable for their style, and groups in which they would study without taking their style into account - that is, to experimental and control groups;
Then, all participants would be taught for some time (and for this, it is necessary to develop equivalent content, but in different formats, so that in the experimental groups it is adapted to the learning style of the participants);
Finally, they would check how all participants assimilated the acquired knowledge, and compare the results in the experimental and control groups.

To ensure the reliability of the experiment, it is necessary that both the experimental and control groups be sufficiently large - from hundreds to thousands of participants. It is also important to conduct multiple experiments with students of different age groups, as conclusions drawn from adult students do not always apply to schoolchildren. It is necessary to test whether the same patterns hold true for children's groups.

Most publications by proponents of the learning styles concept do not present experimental results. When experiments are conducted, critics often express doubts and comments regarding their design. A review of the existing literature shows that experimental research on this topic remains insufficient. This indicates the need for a more thorough and systematic study of learning styles to confirm or refute their effectiveness in the educational process.

Why the Authors of the New Article Decided to Reexamine Old Research

Christina Litzinger, the author of the new article summarizing research on learning styles, began her career as a school teacher. She notes that early in her professional career, she was trained in methods for applying the theory of learning styles. This information underscores the importance of understanding different approaches to teaching to improve the effectiveness of the educational process. Research in the field of learning styles remains relevant, as it helps to adapt teaching methods to the individual needs of students.

The article raises an important question about the existence of different learning styles, such as auditory and visual. The second author, like many other researchers, believes that belief in these styles may not be as harmless a myth as it seems. Firstly, adapting educational materials to different styles requires significant effort and resources. Although modern generative neural networks significantly facilitate this task, the materials created with their help still need careful verification. This requires time and effort from teachers. If the concept of learning styles itself is not scientifically substantiated, then such work becomes futile and distracts teachers and methodologists from more effective teaching methods.

The concept of learning styles is often associated with a fixed mindset, which assumes that a person's learning ability is determined by their innate qualities. This view leads to the belief that if a person doesn't demonstrate aptitude in a particular subject, then their efforts to study it will not lead to success. Teachers who hold this view may believe, for example, that verbal learners—those who process information better in text format—are more capable in science than kinesthetic learners. As a result, they may believe that no matter how much effort a kinesthetic learner puts into learning a subject, their results and grades will remain low. This limited perception can negatively impact student motivation and achievement, hindering their development and learning.

What the Authors of the New Review Found

The authors used a meta-analysis approach, beginning with selecting relevant studies and then extracting the necessary quantitative data from them. This data was pooled and recalculated, allowing them to obtain results for the entire study rather than for individual experiments. In selecting studies, they followed the criteria proposed in a well-known 2008 review on the topic.

during the study, students' learning styles were determined (at least two different ones);
then participants were randomly assigned to groups that studied the same material in different formats (for example, visual and audio);
all participants were tested for topic acquisition in the same way;
the results showed that learning is more effective when learning style and content format match.

The meta-analysis examined 21 studies that met the established criteria. Each of these studies had a small sample size, ranging from 13 to 183 participants, mainly consisting of students and schoolchildren. The total number of participants included in the meta-analysis was 1,712.

The meta-analysis found that participants in the experiments covered by the review performed better when taught in a format that matched their individual learning styles. This finding contradicts previous research. The surprising nature of these findings led lead study author Virginia Clinton-Lisell to note in a Facebook post that two journals refused to publish the manuscript due to editorial opposition to the idea of studying learning styles and the results.

Should the new review's results be trusted?

The study's authors are cautious about their findings, emphasizing numerous limitations that could influence the results.

All studies included in the meta-analysis were published in English (the authors selected what they could analyze themselves) - this means that studies in other languages with different data may have been missed, and if they had been taken into account, the results could have been different.
All the studies reviewed described short-term experiments - they did not study whether learning has any delayed long-term effects.
In 85% of the studies, students whose learning style was not clearly defined were simply excluded from the experimental results. This means that the conclusions were drawn on samples that were significantly different from real school and university classes, and only this truncated data was included in the meta-analysis.
The studies differed from each other in significant details, the influence of which on the results could not be taken into account in the meta-analysis. For example, some experiments determined the effectiveness of learning style-based instruction by comparing test scores for different individuals—participants in experimental and control groups. Others compared the learning outcomes of the same individuals in different formats—those that matched and those that did not match their learning styles.
And most importantly, 75% of the studies demonstrated the effectiveness of matching learning style and content format for only one of the styles examined. It would have been more convincing if the effectiveness had been demonstrated for at least two styles.

Evidence of the effectiveness of matching format and style for different learning styles is highly significant. Let's consider this using the example of one study conducted in 2021 with 30 Iranian students. Although this study was small and not highly significant, it serves as an illustration of the topic. It is important to note that different learning styles may require different approaches to the format and style of information presentation. This highlights the need to adapt educational content to achieve maximum learning effectiveness.

Photo: Grigorev_Vladimir / iStock

A study on English language learning examined the process of memorizing new words and understanding texts containing them. The authors of the experiment assessed the impact of different vocabulary learning formats, tailored to students' learning styles, on these outcomes. In one condition, students could click on unfamiliar words in the text to hear their definitions or translations in audio format. In another condition, students received the same information in text format. This study provides a better understanding of how a variety of learning formats can influence the effectiveness of language acquisition.

The study of new words through text passages took place over a two-month period in regularly scheduled classes held twice a week. After each of the eight classes, the researchers administered short tests to assess how the chosen format contributed to vocabulary memorization and text comprehension. The results of all eight lessons and tests showed the following conclusions.

In the vocabulary tests, participants showed the following average results:

Auditory learners scored 5.7 points out of 7 when they listened to definitions and translations of words during learning, and 4.4 when they read them.
Verbal learners, on the contrary, after the audio lessons solved the test with an average of 3.4 points, and with a text lesson - with 6.2.
For students who were classified as representatives of other learning styles or a mixed style, scores under all conditions fluctuated between 4 and 4.6 - except for a very low average score of 3.2 for visual learners in the audio format.

Verbal and auditory learners demonstrated significantly better results compared to other learning styles when the learning format matched their preferences.

Average scores of study participants on knowledge testing Vocabulary skills constitute an important aspect of the analysis. The study assessed the participants' vocabulary skills, which allows us to identify their level of preparation and language comprehension. The obtained results will help in further improving educational programs and teaching methods. Analysis of mean scores also provides the opportunity to compare different groups of participants, which can be useful for studying vocabulary skills in different contexts and age groups.

The study by Tadayonifar, Entezari, and Valizadeh (2021) examines the impact of computer assistance on vocabulary learning and reading comprehension using text and audio glosses in native and foreign languages. The work is published in the Journal of Language and Education and covers various learning styles. The authors find that the use of technologies, such as text and audio glosses, contributes to improved language learning outcomes and increased comprehension. The study emphasizes the importance of adapting teaching methods depending on students' preferences, which can significantly improve the effectiveness of the educational process.

The results of the text comprehension tests showed similar results. The maximum possible score was 6. Students who used the audio format scored an average of 4.5 points, while with the text format, their result was 3.4 points. Verbal learners showed the opposite results: they scored an average of 3.8 points in the audio format and 5.1 points in the text format. For the remaining students, results ranged from 3 to 3.7 points in all conditions. These data highlight the importance of choosing the material format for achieving the best results in text comprehension.

The average scores of study participants on text comprehension tests indicate their level of literacy and ability to perceive information. These indicators are an important indicator of the educational process and can help identify areas requiring attention. Analysis of test results allows us to draw conclusions about reading and text analysis skills among different groups. Participation in such studies contributes to an increase in overall knowledge and the improvement of teaching methods.

The study by Tadayonifar, Entezari, and Valizadeh focused on the impact of computer assistance on vocabulary learning and reading. This article examines text and audio glosses in the native language (L1) and second language (L2) and their effectiveness for different learning styles. The results show that the use of such glosses can significantly improve students' reading comprehension and retention of new words. This highlights the importance of adapting teaching methods depending on individual learners' preferences. Understanding the impact of technology on the learning process contributes to a more effective approach to language learning and can be useful for teachers and students. Link to the full text of the study: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.11020.

This study found that matching the format of the content to the learning style significantly improves test results. Auditory learners who used audio materials in the classroom demonstrated better vocabulary retention and text comprehension. At the same time, verbal learners showed higher results when only text was used. This suggests that format matching can have a positive impact on results, although it is not the only factor determining learning success.

Let's imagine a situation where verbal learners demonstrate higher scores in a text-based format, while auditory learners perform comparable to the others. In this case, other factors may be at play, in addition to the similarity of formats. For example, differences in information comprehension and learning preferences can influence results. Verbal learners tend to perceive information better through text, allowing them to achieve higher results in such conditions. Auditory learners, on the other hand, may have difficulty working with text-based materials, but their abilities may be demonstrated in other formats. These alternative explanations highlight the importance of taking individual learning styles into account when evaluating outcomes.

The verbal group included the strongest students;
The text-based content was the most successful, while the audio version was of poorer quality;
All of the students in this sample had similar listening difficulties.

The authors of the meta-analysis found that in most studies, learning outcomes were higher when the instructional format matched the learning style, but this only applied to students with one specific style. It is worth noting that some of the studies analyzed included experiments with a limited number of participants, which could have influenced the results due to various random factors unrelated to learning styles.

So What About Styles?

The main conclusion of Virginia Clinton-Lisell and Christina Litzinger is that, despite the unexpected results of their study, no changes in teaching practice are needed. First, this is just one meta-analysis based on a limited number of diverse publications, many of which are of low quality. Second, even if the identified effect is confirmed in the future, its magnitude will remain small. Therefore, significant changes in the educational process aimed at introducing learning styles may be unjustified. It is important for researchers to continue researching this topic without ignoring the obtained results in order to ensure the further development of educational practices.

The authors argue that the optimal use of time and effort should be directed towards the most effective teaching methods. One such method is multimedia learning, based on dual coding theory. This theory suggests the simultaneous delivery of information in visual and audio formats. Unlike creating different versions of content, such as audio recordings, text materials, and visual elements, a multimedia approach offers a single version for all students. Research and meta-analyses show that this teaching method is twice as effective, making it a preferred choice for educational institutions and teachers.