Beyond Categories: Why is a multimodal approach necessary in SLA?

The concept of learning style plays a major role in the field of education, i.e., how students
prefer to aquire information. Since learning a second language is a complex process (Friederici,
2011), and students' foreign language skills are assessed on five different criteria (reading, grammar,
listening, writing, speaking) within the high school final exams (in Hungary), a more complex
examination of learning preferences may become more important. This essay argues that although
learning styles exist as meaningful learner preferences, educators need to adopt a more holistic,
multimodal approach to understanding learning because fixed style-based models oversimplify
cognitive processes, lack empirical support, and limit both teaching practice and student
development.

There are well-known frameworks such as Visual, Aural, Read/write, Kinestethic , namely the
VARK model (Fleming, 1987) and David A. Kolb’s experiental learning theory (ELM) (Kolb, 1984),
however, despite their popularity, latest research has consistently shown that there is insufficient
evidence that matching method to a learner’s preferred style improves learning outcomes.
According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018), research in the
field of cognitive science shows that learning is not driven by a single sensory channel but by the
interaction of multiple cognitive systems, such as memory, attention, and prior knowledge. Since
learning occurs through these interconnected processes, narrowed categories such as “visual” or
“auditory” cannot adequately describe how individuals actually learn. This complexity becomes even
more apparent in the acquisition of a second language, as language learning requires the
simultaneous integration of phonological, semantic, and grammatical knowledge, as well as social
and contextual cues. Individual differences also shows that factors such as motivation, self-
regulation, and cognitive style interact dynamically, making it impossible to attribute learning success
to a single preferred modality (Dörnyei, 2005). Overall, the lack of strong empirical evidence for style
matching and the multidimensional nature of learning processes justify a shift towards a holistic,
flexible approach rather than adherence to traditional learning style categories.

Another reason for adopting a multi-level approach is that labeling learning styles can limit
both teachers' practices and students' development. Putting students into only one category e.g.,
"visual," "auditory," or "kinesthetic" can lead them to avoid tasks that they believe do not match
their style, thereby reducing opportunities to develop more and essential skills. Accoring to Hattie
and O’Leary (2025) research consistently fails to demonstrate that aligning teaching with students’
preferred styles improves performance; the effect size is negligible (d = 0.04). Moreover, How People
Learn II (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018) emphasizes that it is
favorable for students to encounter information in more than one form—verbally, visually,
collaboratively, and experientially—because each method supports different cognitive functions,
thus deepening understanding and strengthening memory. Dörnyei's (2005) research similarly points
out that students' beliefs about themselves strongly influence their motivation and perseverance.
When students internalize these limiting labels, they can stop them from participating in challenging
but beneficial and productive learning activities. To demonstrate the idea of Dörnyei, a student who
believes that one of their strengths is communication, because they are excellent at expressing
themselves, may be discouraged from focusing on grammar or writing tasks because they think they
"wouldn't be able to do it anyway.” Conversely, if a student thinks they are an excellent writer with
perfect grammar, their communication skills may be pushed into the background. However, these
skills are also tested in the exam, and correct speech is also necessary in everyday life and in the job
market. Therefore, a multilayered approach encourages flexibility: students should use different
strategies, reflect on their own learning processes, and acquire a wider range of skills. For teachers,
adopting such an approach may promote more successful education, allowing for multiple ways to
understanding while avoiding the pedagogical constraints imposed by fixed, labeled categories.

Other types of categorization also exist in school environments, which science tends to reject
(University of Utah Neuroscience Researchers, 2013). The "labeling" of students, placing them into
only one category, may also be contributed to by the misconception that certain skills and subjects
are dominated by one hemisphere of the brain or the other. For example, math is „left-brained”,
while art is „right-brained”. In contrast, neuroimaging research shows that both hemispheres work
together for efficient mathematical reasoning, creativity and artistic ability (Nielsen et al., 2013).
Grades may suggest the preferred subject by the learner, but they can not put students into only one
category. As mentioned above, the demsytification of a distinct learning stlye has also been
reinforced by brain images (Dehaene, 2021).

As shown, these categorizations can be a limitation for both the students and teachers. While
these tendencies based on preferences and behaviour of students can shape and inform learners’
engagement and educators’ strategic choices, the concept of these oversimplificated and fixed
categories is not supported by contemporary research. In contrast to that, drawing on SLA findings,
psychology and cognitive science, educators should move beyond and think in overlapping and
flexibility that support a more efficient learning experience. However, as the education system is
highly complex and this type of pedagogical approach may require more time and energy on the part
of teachers, implementing this form of education may involve changes at higher levels within the
system.

Dehaene, S. (2020). How we learn: Why brains learn better than any machine … for now (First
American edition). Viking.

Dörnyei, Z. (Ed.). (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function.
Physiological Reviews, 91(4), 1357–1392. [Link]

Hattie, J., & O’Leary, T. (2025). Learning styles, preferences, or strategies? An explanation for the
resurgence of styles across many meta-analyses. Educational Psychology Review, 37,
Article 31. [Link]

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How People Learn II: Learners,
contexts, and cultures. The National Academies Press. [Link]

Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). An evaluation of
the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic
resonance imaging. PLoS One, 8(8), e71275. [Link]

University of Utah Neuroscience Researchers. (2013, August 15). Researchers debunk myth of
‘right-brained’ and ‘left-brained’ personality traits. ScienceDaily.
[Link]