One of Many Theories: Exposure to Learning Styles

I was first exposed to the concept of learning styles and the theory of multiple intelligences as an undergraduate student in secondary education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Similar to Blooms Taxonomy, Piaget's theory of cognitive development, Erikson's theory of psychosocial development, or Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, and consequently the 'learning styles' and subsequent frameworks that manifested because of this theory, created a seemingly firm foundation for my understanding of how humans best learn, understand, and retain knowledge. Despite empirical evidence to the contrary, learning styles are still used to frame the construction of lessons and modes of teaching not only in the field of education, but across the academic spectrum in spaces of teaching and learning. 

 A quick Google Scholar search of articles from 2020 using the term "Multiple Intelligences" followed by a field signifier, for instance NIH for "National Institutes of Health," shows that even in fields like health where claims of the validity and reliability of theory are generally empirically founded, Multiple Intelligences are still being used to frame research into 'best teaching practices' in various environments and with unique populations (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Google Scholar Search For "Multiple Intelligences NIH" 2020-present

Upon closer examination of how this theory is validated by the researchers in Figure 1, all found validity in some way through frequency of use in the field of education. For instance, the first line of the first paper meeting our criteria highlighted in Figure 1, composed by Rhiannon Duvall (2020) states, "The Multiple Intelligences theory has been used to modify lessons in the traditional classroom for years," as a justification for its use, and then goes on to promote the multiple intelligences framework as a means of addressing "various learning abilities" (p. ii). In addition to validation through use, the next article on our list by Stanescu & Tomescu (2021) claims that "Applying [multiple intelligences] theory to the field of education actually means identifying the main ways in which a certain content can become comprehensible for an individual. . . .  Although possessing all types of intelligence, an individual is essentially characterised by one or some of them that will influence their personal learning style," . . . " (p. 168; emphasis added). This claim implies there are certain 'main' ways to learn that match an individual's measured 'Multiple Intelligences,' despite this claim being empirically unsubstantiated (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork, 2009). 

The use of these ideas that taxonomize students into categories of learning styles is prolific. I certainly used this theory to frame my thinking while constructing lesson plans during my time as a secondary education teacher, mainly as a means of ensuring I was differentiating the lessons enough for students with 'different learning styles'. I remember sitting at my desk thinking, "Am I including something for my kinesthetic learners? How can I get their hands on something?" while planning a lesson on censorship in Fahrenheit 451. Which makes me think that despite missing the mark on why it is better to provide more modes of interacting with the content, at least I hit the mark on providing more ways for students to incorporate the content into their mental schema. What is more important is how and when the information is presented and retrieved. 

Luckily, I've never subscribed to the whole 'labeling students' craze that came with the proliferation of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences or the new label craze in strengths-based education associated with Clifton Strengths, so my infusion of Multiple Intelligences and learning styles often just looked like differentiation--more ways for students to interact with content. Using the theory this way, as a conceptual frame to help think through ways to modify and differentiate lessons for a class of diverse learners, is a much more holistic and less reductive way of understanding that people are individuals with unique ways of learning and knowing, rather than placing them in 'learning boxes' or under labels that have the potential to limit their self-perception and esteem.