Concepts for Coaches: Learning Styles

Let’s cut to the chase - the concept that people have unique “learning styles” is a myth (here is some data for you).

Popularized by Neil Fleming, the original idea behind learning styles was that people had a preference for how information was presented (visually, auditorially, kinesthetically, or reading) and that matching learning style with presentation style led to better learning outcomes. It’s an appealing idea because it simplifies all of humanity into 4 buckets and makes us feel like as long as we’re matching styles to preferences, we’re teaching.

You’ve been lied to.

People don’t neatly fit into 4 buckets, and there’s no scientific reason that we’d have evolved 4 unique ways to learn within 1 brain (the idea of left/right brained is also a myth, by the way). That would actually be wildly inefficient. And, the idea of learning styles in almost all cases fails to reach any level of scientific credibility. It’s time we let it go.

This myth is hurting your coaching or teaching if it’s something you’re subscribed to. And, it’s most certainly hurting the athletes you are coaching, since this myth is indoctrinated in the education system across the world. The more people restrict the way they perceive their ability to learn, the less attention they pay to learning not delivered in their “preferred style.” The self-limiting beliefs, and the ineffective teaching and tailoring, are problematic on both ends.

We’d do well to turn to the science and look at how people really learn.

At the simplest level, brains are statistical, Bayesian learning machines. What that basically means is that brains take prior data, update slightly to account for new data, and that accounting is “learning.” Sometimes this learning is experienced as a deep aha! moment and other times, we don’t even notice it taking place. But, this basic understanding points us in some helpful directions. Please note that this is a fairly significant simplification, but it is built on evolutionary principles much more sound than the idea that brains could have evolved 4 special ways of learning.

One direction is that people do in fact need repetition to learn something. Our brains need to build up a database of prior data to draw upon to perform a new skill, so that rote repetition happening in practice can be helpful, up to a point. But, then our brains need to be challenged - the optimal difficulty level is 85% - to create a forcing function for the brain to update the model and learn something new. That increased effort it takes to master the task at 85% difficulty level is enough to force our brains to remodel the skill internally, and not so much that we get overwhelmed.

The second is that learning requires variability. People need to train skills in different conditions to account for the many possibilities unfolding in a sporting event. It’s very rare for a player to take 10 uncontested 3 pointers in a row in a game, so practicing that from a rote repetition standpoint is good until the skill is perfected; beyond that, it starts to border on a waste of time, because the task isn’t challenging enough. But, simply introducing a defender at random is enough to force the brain back into accounting for something new, and we might see more learning take place.

Learning also takes place in specific contexts. Rather than focusing on the method of your delivery (visual, auditory, etc.) focus on creating an environment that facilitates learning. That means an environment where people feel free to speak up, take risks, try something new, and perhaps most importantly, ask questions. When people feel safe in their environment to explore, learning is enhanced. When they don’t, memory is impeded and all that training goes to waste.

This should be liberating for coaches. You no longer need to worry about accounting for everyone’s specific style, and instead can focus on the basics of great teaching:

• Clear communication that provides enough context and direction for people to execute. Think no more than 3-5 directions at a time.
• An opportunity to rehearse.
• Varied context.
• Desirable difficulty.
• A healthy learning environment

This isn’t a “the rest takes care of itself” message, but kind of. The main point is that believing learning styles is a thing is hurting education, both from a credibility standpoint and from an actual teaching standpoint. We’d do well to do away with the myth and focus on what really works.