The Myth of Learning Styles

And what education research actually tells us

In 1983, Howard Gardner published his theory of multiple intelligences, which proposed that intelligence is a set of distinct abilities–linguistic-auditory, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist–and different people have different intellectual strengths. This framework has been extended to suggest that people learn differently based on their intelligence "profiles." In other words, visual-spatial learners need images, linguistic-auditory learners need spoken information, and bodily-kinesthetic learners need movement.

These ideas are compelling, and they suggest a personalized approach to education that honors individual differences. But though they may feel right, they're wrong: the theory of multiple intelligences hasn’t been empirically supported, and a widespread belief in it has led to educational myths that can be actively damaging to student outcomes.

The first problematic myth that the theory promotes is the shift toward "learning by discovery." The belief that different students have different learning styles leads educators to incorporate exploratory approaches in which students discover information in ways that match their IQ profiles. However, research consistently shows that direct, explicit instruction, paired with supported, guided, and relevant practice, is far superior to discovery and exploration. This doesn't mean abandoning engaging teaching–drilling can indeed be boring–so incorporating motivational strategies is essential. But practice, repetition, and rehearsal remains necessary, and it's necessary to chart progress, reinforce correct answers, and keep practice dynamic.

The second myth is that teachers should present information in many “multisensory” ways to match instructional materials to individual students’ IQ profiles. This approach places an enormous burden on teachers and actually detracts from effective teaching. We have solid evidence about what constitutes good instruction for virtually all learners. So rather than preparing different instructional materials for different kids, teachers should simply prepare one lesson and make minor modifications to support students who learn at atypical paces.

Modifications need to ensure instructional match; in other words, kids shouldn’t get stuck with materials that are too hard or too easy. To figure out who needs modifications, teachers should conduct regular progress monitoring. Guided practice should be provided to students until they can complete 90-93% of questions correctly; then, they should move to independent practice. For students who don't reach this accuracy level on pace with peers, teachers should provide additional small-group or individual instruction, devoting extra time to teaching skills and providing more guided practice. At the same time, challenge problems should be provided for students who achieve early mastery. These evidence-based strategies are far more actionable for teachers and more likely to succeed than trying to teach the same concept in multiple modalities to accommodate presumed learning styles.

The third myth is that schools should be a good "fit" for individual children. As we've discussed, most students learn in roughly the same way. Teachers and schools are effective or ineffective based on how much they incorporate evidence-based instructional techniques, maintain classroom environments that support learning, and motivate student engagement. Essentially, teachers and schools are either good or bad for most kids, and few if any individual factors make schools particularly suited to specific students. Yet this notion of "fit" has led to an overemphasis on school choice, which has exacerbated educational inequalities, concentrated resources in certain schools while leaving others impoverished, and created a scarcity mindset that serves no one.

The science of learning reveals that what works isn't matching teaching to presumed learning styles, but instead implementing proven instructional methods that benefit all students.

***

Saw this for the first time over the weekend with my daughter and we both loved loved loved it!