Show caption ‘The claim that students will perform better when the teaching is matched to their preferred learning style is simply not supported by science,’ writes Bruce Hood. Photograph: Alamy No evidence to back idea of learning styles Letter Sun 12 Mar 2017 23.59 GMT Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email

There is widespread interest among teachers in the use of neuroscientific research findings in educational practice. However, there are also misconceptions and myths that are supposedly based on sound neuroscience that are prevalent in our schools. We wish to draw attention to this problem by focusing on an educational practice supposedly based on neuroscience that lacks sufficient evidence and so we believe should not be promoted or supported.

Generally known as “learning styles”, it is the belief that individuals can benefit from receiving information in their preferred format, based on a self-report questionnaire. This belief has much intuitive appeal because individuals are better at some things than others and ultimately there may be a brain basis for these differences. Learning styles promises to optimise education by tailoring materials to match the individual’s preferred mode of sensory information processing.

There are, however, a number of problems with the learning styles approach. First, there is no coherent framework of preferred learning styles. Usually, individuals are categorised into one of three preferred styles of auditory, visual or kinesthetic learners based on self-reports. One study found that there were more than 70 different models of learning styles including among others, “left v right brain,” “holistic v serialists,” “verbalisers v visualisers” and so on. The second problem is that categorising individuals can lead to the assumption of fixed or rigid learning style, which can impair motivation to apply oneself or adapt.

Finally, and most damning, is that there have been systematic studies of the effectiveness of learning styles that have consistently found either no evidence or very weak evidence to support the hypothesis that matching or “meshing” material in the appropriate format to an individual’s learning style is selectively more effective for educational attainment. Students will improve if they think about how they learn but not because material is matched to their supposed learning style. The Educational Endowment Foundation in the UK has concluded that learning styles is “Low impact for very low cost, based on limited evidence”.

These neuromyths may be ineffectual, but they are not low cost. We would submit that any activity that draws upon resources of time and money that could be better directed to evidence-based practices is costly and should be exposed and rejected. Such neuromyths create a false impression of individuals’ abilities, leading to expectations and excuses that are detrimental to learning in general, which is a cost in the long term.

One way forward is to draw attention to practices that are not evidence-based and to encourage neuroscientists and educationalists to promote the need for critical thinking when evaluating the claims for educational benefits supposedly based on neuroscience. As part of Brain Awareness Week that begins 13 March, we support neuroscientists going into schools to talk about their research but also to raise awareness of neuromyths.

Professor Bruce Hood

Chair of developmental psychology in society, University of Bristol, founder of Speakezee

Professor Paul Howard-Jones

Chair of neuroscience and education, University of Bristol

Professor Diana Laurillard

Professor of learning with digital technology, UCL Knowledge Lab, University College London

Professor Dorothy Bishop

Professor of developmental neuropsychology, University of Oxford

Professor Frank Coffield

Emeritus professor of education, University College Institute of Education, University of London

Professor Dame Uta Frith

Emeritus Professor, Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London

Professor Steven Pinker

Johnstone family professor of psychology, Harvard University

Sir Colin Blakemore

Professor of neuroscience and philosophy, director of the Centre for the Study of the Senses, University College London

Professor Hal Pashler

Distinguished professor of psychology, UC San Diego

Dr Peter Etchells

Senior lecturer in biological psychology, Bath Spa University

Dr Nathalia Gjersoe

Senior lecturer in developmental psychology, University of Bath

Professor Gaia Scerif

Professor of developmental cognitive neuroscience, University of Oxford

Dr Sara Baker

Lecturer in psychology and education, University of Cambridge

Dr Matthew Wall

Division of brain sciences, Imperial College London

Dr Jon Simons

Reader in cognitive neuroscience, University of Cambridge

Dr Michelle Ellefson

Senior lecturer in psychology and education, University of Cambridge

Dr Ashok Jansari

Lecturer in cognitive neuropsychology, Goldsmiths, University of London

Dr Molly Crockett

Associate professor of experimental psychology, University of Oxford

Professor Kate Nation

Professor of experimental psychology, University of Oxford

Professor Michael Thomas

Director, University of London Centre for Educational Neuroscience, professor of cognitive neuroscience, Birkbeck, University of London

Dr Nikhil Sharma

Honorary consultant neurologist and senior clinical researcher (MRC),

the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery

Dr David Whitebread

PEDAL research centre, University of Cambridge

Professor Mark Sabbagh

Professor of psychology and neuroscience, Queen’s University, Canada

Dr Cristine Legare

Associate professor of psychology, University of Texas at Austin

Dr Joseph T Devlin

Head of experimental psychology, University College London

Professor Peter Gordon

Program director, neuroscience and education, Teachers College, Columbia University

Professor David Poeppel

Director, department of neuroscience, Max-Planck-Institute, Frankfurt

Professor Brian Butterworth

Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Centre for Educational Neuroscience,

University College London

Professor Anil Seth

Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science, School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex

Dr Tom Foulsham

Reader in psychology, University of Essex



• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com