Page 13 - 2024_Mag_91-2

Viewpoint

The danger of the learning styles myth lies
in this misapplication of multiple intelligences.
When a learner believes that they can only process
information presented visually because they are
a “visual learner,” they create a deficit mindset.
Counter to this limiting belief, the human brain
holds the capacity to learn in a myriad of ways;
to restrict the type of information received
to only one modality undermines the brain’s
natural capacity. Moreover, the limiting belief
shifts the responsibility for learning away from
the learner. If the learner does not grasp material
immediately, the learning style myth allows
that this could be because the educator did not
present the information in the appropriate style,
thereby absolving the learner of responsibility
for engaging in learning. Although individuals
certainly have preferences for how they like to receive information, that preference does not limit the
brain’s natural capacity to learn from information in many forms.
If it is a myth, how can it really be useful? Deligiannidi and Howard-Jones (2015) reported that
97% of the educators whom they surveyed believe that teaching to learning styles is effective practice.
Presenting material in multiple ways to support the varied students in their care helps students master
content. Educators commonly use Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences to differentiate lessons, but
this is not the same as the myth of learning styles.
What is our way forward? Wininger et al. (2019) found that even with a paucity of evidence, half
of the introduction-to-education texts they examined recommended matching instruction to learning
style. Practicing educators can take the purported benefits of matching learning style and leave the deficit
mindset behind by shifting the language they use. By keeping the idea of a preference at the forefront,
learners and educators respect the brain’s capacity to learn in a myriad of ways while also recognizing
that individuals have more or less comfort with the differing ways materials can be presented. This
shift keeps the useful aspects of adapting lessons for learning style preferences and those that align with
differentiating instruction; it also leans into developing learners’ awareness of their own natural capacity
to learn in many ways.
By shifting our language to speak about our learning preferences, we dismiss the deficit view inherent in
learning styles. By including multiple modalities in planning instruction (sometimes called pluralization),
we honor the brain’s ability to learn and its natural desire for novelty. The individualization, or rather
personalization, embedded in lesson planning also builds the student-teacher relationship as the instructor
listens to a preference and uses the information in future planning. Together, these strategies embrace
the positive aspects of learning style preferences and diminish the detractors. Maybe learning styles is a
myth as my colleague suggested, but adapting lessons to present material in a variety of ways serves my
students—so for me, it is a useful myth.

Dr. Jess L. Gregory is a member of Beta Chapter in Connecticut State Organization. After being a chemistry teacher in an
urban school for a decade, she is a professor and Chair of the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department at Southern
Connecticut State University, where she teaches educational leadership courses across both the sixth-year administrator certification
and doctoral programs. Her greatest joy in work is helping students develop their potential as school leaders and researchers.
gregoryj2@southernct.edu

Collegial Exchange · 11