The idea that you should tailor the way you learn to the learning style that you naturally gravitate towards has become increasingly popular over time. The Onion poked fun at the idea.
They ran a story about parents who were upset their child, a nasal learner, who wasn’t suited to learn new information through traditional methods. “My child is not stupid. There simply was no way for him to thrive in a school that only caters to traditional students who absorb educational concepts by hearing, reading, seeing, discussing, drawing, building, or acting out.”
There is a reason some people want the Learning Styles theory to be true – it equalizes the playing field. There is an implicit political statement within it that asserts that each person is equally smart, and what differentiates people from one another when it comes to learning is not intelligence, but a mismatch of environment to their natural way of learning. But in reality, the decades of research that has gone into the topic has not yielded much clarity to the subject or confirmed the claims of the LS (Learning Styles) proponents.
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1983) is a LS classification, other teachers use the Myers-Briggs Type indicator (1998) that focuses on variations in personality. The Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire is popular too. But few of the studies that confirm LS theories are peer revied (less than one quarter).
Hyman and Rossof give four requirements that LS proponents should meet. First, is there a clear concept of LS? No. There seems to be more differences than similarities when comparing the different models. The VAK model is based on sensory modalities (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) while the Honey-Mumford model focuses on a different classification (activists, reflectors, theorists, pragmatists). We don’t know what LS is, despite decades of study.
Second, is there a reliable way to assess a student’s LS? No.
Third, is there evidence to support the effectiveness of matching instructors’ Teaching Style to students’ Learning Style? Not really. Since the 1970’s, for every study that supports this claim, there has been one that refutes it.
Fourth, can educators train teachers to adapt their TS to match students’ LS? No. There are more commercial claims than scientific ones.
So the popular belief that encouraging teachers to match their TS to students’ LS enhances their learning turns out to be an urban legend of educational psychology.
Source: 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior, Scott O. Lilienfeld
If you are interested in reading books about unmasking human nature, consider reading The Dichotomy of the Self, a book that explores the great psychoanalytic and philosophical ideas of our time, and what they can reveal to us about the nature of the self.