Mind myth 7: Learning styles and multiple intelligences

This is the seventh mind myth in my series of mind myths applicable to education. It relates to two related ideas that are popular with "progressive" educators and educational policy makers the world over. The twin ideas that major individual, meaningful differences exist in children's (and adults') learning styles and multiple intelligences, have served to hide the unfortunate reality that some individuals struggle to learn whatever the input; and that some individuals lack mental capacity. Do individuals differ in terms of learning styles and multiple intelligences and can catering to such differences improve instruction methods in schools and colleges?

Learning styles

So-called learning styles are a mixed bag of different concepts - Coffield et al. (2004) identified more that 70 different and sometimes competing learning styles. Many of these are commercially based and offer expensive proprietary tests and training, trust the hucksters not to miss an opportunity for profit.

Stahl (1999) tried to order the field somewhat by differentiating between learning preferences, cognitive styles, personality types and aptitudes. He had to concede, however, that the learning style concept had much in common with fortune telling. Though he did not label it such, what he referred to is known as the Forer effect - where ambiguous statements that are hard to disagree with are made. The validity of different learning styles and the validity and reliability with which they can be assessed are equally a mixed bag.

Let us accept that some learning styles are valid concepts and can be validly and reliably assessed. The question then arises whether knowing learners' learning styles and adapting your instructional methods to complement those styles is feasable and effective? The answer is unfortunately an unequivocal NO. It sounds good in theory, but is does not work. Hattie (1999) showed that the effect size of individualization in schooling across 180 000 studies (no, not a typing error) was only 0.14 of a standard deviation, which is trivial. There are numerous other studies that come to the same conclusion, individualised instruction based on some putative characteristic of the learner does not work. Let me put it more bluntly, the evidence shows that catering your instructional methods according to the known learning styles of the learners in front of you is ineffective and a waste of time and energy. That also applies to the most widely spread learning style based methods used in teaching, the so-called visual-auditory-kinesthetic modality or VAK approach.

Another line of research that applies to both learning styles and multiple intelligences is the largely futile search for Cronbach's aptitude by treatment interactions (ATI's). In 1956 Lee Cronbach called for a combination of experimental and correlational research designs to address complex realities in fields such as education. This line of research came to be knowns as the study of ATI's. By 1975 Cronbach conceded that the search for ATI's had been unsuccessful. This is part of a much larger debate about the philosophy of science and scientific paradigms. Suffice to say, attempts to taylor instruction (treatment) to the personal characteristics (aptitude) of learners have been largely unsuccessful. For a discussion of some of these issues see a discussion by Cunningham.

It has been suggested that the learning style movement (and multiple intelligences) may lack scientific credibility and evidence for effectiveness, but that it has served to alert teachers to the fact that a repertoire of teaching methods is needed and that issues such motivation and emotions are important for learning. I largely agree with this and my questioning of the usefulness of these concepts is not a call for the exclusive use of so-called "chalk-and-talk" teaching methods (they have their place). The point is that teaching methods should be adjusted according to the nature of the subject matter, not based on putative individual learning styles.

Multiple intelligences

Gardner's multiple intelligence theory has been and still is very influential in education worldwide. It was also made to measure for the commercial educational solutions industry, eight intelligences to improve and make money from!

Gardner's theory is sometimes used in opposition to theories of intelligence that are based on factor analysis of ability tests and that emphasize a general intelligence factor, g. This is a complex and controversial field and I cannot begin to do justice to it in a blog posting. A good review by Prof. Daniel Willingham can be found online. Willingham argued that Gardner's theory is inconsistent with current views of intelligence as a hierarchical construct. Willingham questioned whether some of Gardner's "intelligences" should not rather be described as aptitudes or talents. Why only these eight intelligences? Willingham, and in another context Arthur Jensen, asked why not also olfactory, criminal and sexual intelligences?

Intelligence as a concept is generally associated with the kind of thinking capacity that make for success as school. Gardner's labeling the aptitudes he proposed as intelligences, naturally led teachers to erroneously assume that they were fungible (one could substitute for another) and should be taught to. Willingham pointed out that Gardner himself had doubts about the functional application of his ideas in school settings.

I believe that the issue of ATI's referred to above, is also applicable to multiple intelligences. There is just very little evidence that teaching should be adjusted according to putative characteristics of learners.

Further reading on learning styles and multiple intelligences:

Cunningham, J.W. (2001). The National Reading Panel Report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 326–335.

Professor pans 'learning style' teaching method. Telegraph, July 2007.

Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in Education. Educational Research, 50, 2 123 – 133.

Reschly, D.J. (2004). Commentary: Paradigm Shift, Outcomes Criteria, and Behavioral Interventions Foundations for the Future of School Psychology.School Psychology Review, Vol. 33.

Sternberg,R.J. et al. (2008). Styles of Learning and Thinking Matter in Instruction and Assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 3. Just for balance, a view from the very influential Robert Sternberg supporting teaching according to learning styles.

Hattie, J. (1999). Influences of student learning: Inaugural Lecture: Professor of Education, University of Auckland

Willingham, D.T. (2004). Check the facts: Reframing the Mind.