Learning Styles in the Age of Differentiated Instruction

Exceptionality, 18:6–17, 2010

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0936-2835 print/1532-7035 online

DOI: 10.1080/09362830903462441

Learning Styles in the Age ofDifferentiated Instruction

Timothy J. Landrum and Kimberly A. McDuffieUniversity of Virginia

The concept of learning styles has tremendous logical and intuitive appeal, and educators’ desireto focus on learning styles is understandable. Recently, a growing emphasis on differentiated

instruction may have further increased teachers’ tendency to look at learning styles as an instruction-

ally relevant variable when individualizing instruction in increasingly heterogeneous classrooms.We discuss the overlapping concepts of individualized instruction and differentiated instruction,

briefly review the evidence base for learning styles, and argue that instruction should indeed

be individualized and differentiated. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence, however,to support learning styles as an instructionally useful concept when planning and delivering

appropriately individualized and differentiated instruction.

The idea that people learn things differently has tremendous intuitive appeal. It is not difficultto argue, for example, that among the myriad skills people master over their lifespan, somethings are learned more quickly than others, skills are mastered with greatly varying amountsof practice, and the acquisition of some skills demands different types and levels of instructionand support. Moreover, different people learn to read, write, solve mathematical computationproblems, hit a baseball, and bake a cake to hugely discrepant levels of success or mastery.An understandable outgrowth of this generally accepted logic is that humans must have somediscernible way or method of acquiring information or mastering skills that suits them best: alearning style. In education, there has been no shortage of controversy about learning styles,with fundamental questions centering on quite basic issues. Do learning styles exist? Canlearning styles be assessed and established reliably? If so, does the assessment of learningstyles lead to instruction that serves students better?

A huge volume of literature appeared in the late 1970s through the 1990s regarding learningstyles, with much of the literature focused on debate about whether science supports theconstruct and its utility for educators. More recently, the notion of learning styles has receivedperhaps unintended attention as the concept of differentiated instruction has become a mantrafor schools and classrooms nationwide. Differentiated instruction, broadly defined as “varying

Correspondence should be addressed to Timothy J. Landrum, PALS Office, Curry School of Education, University

of Virginia, 617 West Main Street, Charlottesville, VA 22908. E-mail: [email protected]

6

LEARNING STYLES 7

instruction to meet the individual needs of all students” (Tomlinson, 1999), typically includesa focus on individual students’ learning profiles. In most models, the term learning profilehas come to include learning styles (e.g., Anderson, 2007; Tomlinson, 1999). Further, learningstyles and modality-based instruction continue to work their way into the parlance of teachereducation, particularly in practitioner-oriented journals that might be presumed to have greaterimpact on practice. This often takes the form of subtle endorsement of learning styles ormodality-based instruction through suggestions that being aware of a student’s learning style isnecessary in order to individualize instruction (e.g., Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Regan, 2009).In this way, learning styles have clearly become a part of teacher lore.

Regarding students with disabilities, matching instruction to individual students’ strengthsand needs has been a hallmark—indeed a defining characteristic—of modern-day specialeducation (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2009; Kauffman & Landrum, 2006). Students areidentified with disabilities and provided with special education services when it is determinedthat they cannot receive an appropriate education through instruction offered to typicallydeveloping students. Special education, then, is “specially designed instruction that meetsthe unusual needs of an exceptional student” (Hallahan et al., 2009, p. 12). But does theconstellation of unique learning needs of students with disabilities comprise a learning profile?And is part of that profile a learning style?

The purpose of this article is to explore the concept of learning styles, and specifically todiscuss the extent to which learning styles represent an area of meaningful focus for educatorscharged with teaching atypical learners. In subsequent sections, we (a) provide an overviewof terminology and overlapping concepts that may contribute to confusion regarding theimportance of learning styles, (b) summarize literature reflecting debate over the empirical basisfor learning styles, and (c) argue that while there are meaningful differences in how studentsshould be taught based on their strengths and needs, the most important and instructionallyrelevant variables do not include learning styles.

TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS OFOVERLAPPING CONSTRUCTS

Educators have played a prominent role in the field of learning disabilities for nearly a century;prior to the early 1900s, the study and treatment of disabilities was primarily the domainof medicine (Hallahan, Lloyd, Kauffman, Weiss, & Martinez, 2005). According to Hallahanet al. (2005), multimodal instruction for students with learning disabilities—instruction gearedtoward a student’s preferred or strongest learning modality—has been discussed by scholarsfor nearly as long, since at least the 1930s. Throughout the evolution of the field, ongoingdebates about appropriate definition, identification, and service provision for students withlearning difficulties have focused on broad and overlapping concepts such as individualizinginstruction and matching instruction to individual strengths and needs. In the context of thesediscussions, a number of terms have been used, and new terminology has evolved recentlythat has potentially resulted in greater confusion about appropriate interventions. We considertwo important and overlapping terms here: (a) individualized instruction and (b) differentiatedinstruction. Individualized instruction, in our view, represents perhaps the most fundamental anddefining characteristic of special education, and has a long tradition in special education policy

8 LANDRUM & MCDUFFIE

and practice. Differentiated instruction, in contrast, represents a relatively recent response tothe growing trend of including students with disabilities in general education, which demandsindividualizing within increasingly heterogeneous classrooms. Whether learning styles shouldplay role in individualizing or differentiating instruction remains controversial. We considereach concept in turn.

Individualized Instruction

Kauffman, Mock, Tankersley, and Landrum (2008) discussed the misperception that individu-alized instruction might imply little more than a one-on-one instructional arrangement. Instead,they note that individualization refers simply to the matching of instruction to individuallyidentified needs. Indeed, individualized instruction may be delivered one-on-one, to a smallgroup of students, or even in the context of whole-class instruction. Hallahan et al. (2009)credited Itard and Seguin, regarded as among the first pioneers of modern special education,with promoting the fundamental ideas that formed the basis of individualized instruction.Hallahan et al. suggested that individualized instruction refers to instruction in which “thechild’s characteristics, rather than prescribed academic content, provide the basis for teachingtechniques” (2009, p. 25). For students with identified disabilities, a full educational evaluationshould lead to the design of instructional programs that target individual students’ strengthsand needs. This is typically accomplished through the Individualized Education Program(IEP) development process. We see at least two key ideas at work in the IEP developmentprocess. One involves determining what to teach, and the other involves determining how

to teach. Determining what to teach involves assessing children’s skill sets across academicand preacademic (and vocational and pre-vocational), social-behavioral, and functional skilldomains. Matching the skills and strengths children bring to bear with their life, vocational,and independent living goals provides a framework for planning an instructional program.

Once students’ present levels of achievement and skill strengths and needs are establishedrelative to their goals, a second purpose of the IEP process is to document accommodationsthat are necessary to make learning appropriate and accessible to students with disabilities(e.g., Haager & Klingner, 2005). Increasingly, this is accomplished in the general educationclassroom, with appropriate supports, modifications, and accommodations provided in a waythat maximizes the extent to which students with disabilities are educated in general educationenvironments with their nondisabled peers. When an appropriate education cannot be achievedin the general education classroom, even with these supplementary supports and services,placement in a different educational environment for part of the day is considered. Regardless ofsetting, accommodations to typical assessment and instruction are generally necessary to meetthe individual needs of students with disabilities. Hallahan et al. (2009) defined accommodationsas “changes in the delivery of instruction, type of student performance, or method of assessmentwhich do not significantly change the content or conceptual difficulty of the curriculum” (p. 64).Accommodations generally include such things as allowing the use of a calculator, reading atest aloud to students, creating assessments with fewer tests items, and providing extended timeon assignments.

Providing individualized instruction through the use of accommodations for students withdisabilities is required by law, but we would argue that instruction needs to be individualizedfor many students, including any who struggle in a given domain or academic content area.

LEARNING STYLES 9

Instructional materials, grouping arrangements, and instructional interactions themselves (e.g.,questioning, corrective feedback, repetition, nature and intensity of prompts) are often adaptedbased on needs identified through prior assessment and observations of classroom performance.

To summarize, instruction is individualized when (a) it is planned in a way that builds onwhat individual students currently know and can do and targets meaningful goals regardingwhat they need to learn next; and (b) accommodations and modifications to teaching and testingroutines are made in order to provide students with full and meaningful access to the contentthey need to learn. While we argue that these two components form the basis of individualizedinstruction, they can also be seen as critical building blocks for the more broadly appliedconcept of differentiated instruction, through which teachers seek to maximize learning inclassrooms that are increasingly heterogeneous.

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is a pedagogical approach to teaching and learning for students of dif-fering readiness levels, interests, and modes of learning within the same classroom (Stradling &Saunders, 1993; Tomlinson et al., 2003). As Stradling and Saunders (1993) stated, differentiatedinstruction is “the process of matching learning targets, tasks, activities, resources, and learningsupport to individual learners’ needs, styles, and rates of learning” (p. 129). Tomlinson (1999)suggested that differentiated instruction is designed to provide various learning opportunities forstudents who differ in their readiness levels (what they know, understand, and can do in relationto the content), their interests (affinity, curiosity, or passion for a topic), and their learningprofiles (which may be shaped by their intelligence preferences, gender, culture, or learningstyle). Tomlinson further suggested that by differentiating instruction, teachers can (a) challengeall learners by providing varied levels of difficulty, (b) vary the degree of scaffolding, and(c) vary the way in which students work. The intent of differentiated instruction is to maximizeeach student’s growth and individual success by meeting each student where he or she is atthe time and assisting them in the learning process. Differentiation is based on a set of beliefsthat (a) students who are the same age differ in their readiness to learn, their experiences, andtheir life circumstances; (b) differences are significant enough to impact what students learn,the pace at which they learn, and the support they need from teachers; (c) students learn bestwhen connections can be made between the curriculum and interests or life experiences; and(d) teachers should attempt to maximize each student’s learning. Differentiated instruction isproactive, student centered, dynamic, and rooted in assessment. It also emphasizes multipleapproaches to teaching content and the use of flexible grouping (Tomlinson, 1999).

Rock, Gregg, Ellis, and Gable (2008) explained the theoretical framework of differentiatedinstruction, based on Tomlinson’s work, through four guiding principles and seven essentialbeliefs. The four guiding principals include

(a) A focus on essential ideas and skills in each content area, (b) responsiveness to individual

student differences, (c) integration of assessment and instruction, and (d) ongoing adjustment of

content, process, and products to meet the individual students’ levels of prior knowledge, criticalthinking, and expression styles (p. 33).

Furthermore, Rock et al. (2008) described seven essential beliefs about differentiated instruc-tion, again based on Tomlinson’s work, which include (a) experiences in life and readiness to


learn differ significantly among same-aged students; (b) these difference have a considerableeffect on their learning; (c) students’ learning is heightened when teachers challenge thembeyond their independent level; (d) learning is more effective when related to real-life scenarios;(e) student learning is enhanced by authentic learning opportunities; (f ) student learning isenhanced when they are respected and valued by their teachers, school, and community; and(g) the ultimate goal of education is to recognize and promote the abilities of each student.Based on these assumptions, teachers can differentiate instruction by adjusting (a) content,(b) process, and/or (c) products based on students’ readiness, interest, and learning profiles(Tomlinson, 1999; Rock et al., 2008).

We find striking similarities between recent conceptualizations of differentiation and tra-ditional special education for students with disabilities. Consider the framework typicallyassociated with differentiation: the modification of content, process, and product. In the contextof traditional special education models, content is modified for some students with disabilitiesbased on strengths, needs, and appropriate goals for school, employment, and independentliving. Instead of a traditional academic curriculum, the content that forms the basis of curricu-lum for some students with disabilities is modified to include functional skills, or vocationaland prevocational skills, that other students may not need. Processes may be modified whenit is determined that typical instructional methods and materials are not appropriate for somestudents with disabilities. Smaller instructional groups may be formed. Instruction may be mademore explicit and more direct and may be delivered in smaller, more frequent doses. Finally,products may be modified in that students with disabilities might be required to complete dif-ferent assignments or respond to alternate assessments to demonstrate their mastery of content.

Consider further the recommended bases on which teachers are encouraged to differentiate:students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles. For the first two of these, readiness andinterests, the similarities between differentiation and special education are again striking. Wetake readiness to mean simply meeting students where they are, planning instruction basedon careful and thorough assessment of what students know and need to learn next. Indeedthis is a fundamental part of the IEP process. Matching instruction to student interests haslong been a part of working with struggling learners, the most classic example being theneed for reading material that appeals to older readers whose reading skills are far belowtheir chronological age (e.g., “high interest, low vocabulary” books). Despite these similarities,we are equally struck by the final basis on which teachers are encouraged to differentiate:students’ learning profile. As noted earlier, Tomlinson (1999) suggested that students’ learningprofiles may be shaped by intelligence preferences, gender, culture, and learning style. Given ahistory of significant controversy and debate, particularly regarding students with disabilities,the inclusion of learning styles in this list is of perhaps greatest concern when we contrastdifferentiation with special education.1

Learning Styles

The term “learning styles” has appeared in the education literature for at least 40 years (seeDunn & Dunn, 1979), although the concept itself has been controversial almost from thestart in special education in particular (e.g., Dunn, 1983, 1990; Kavale & Forness, 1987,1990; Kavale & LeFever, 2007; Lovelace, 2005; Stahl, 1999). According to Dunn (1983),learning style is based on the concept that individuals differ significantly in the way (or

LEARNING STYLES 11

style) that they concentrate, absorb, and retain new information. This style, as Dunn (1983)described, “comprises a combination of environmental, emotional, sociological, physical, andpsychological elements that permit individuals to receive, store, and use knowledge” (p. 496).Dunn and Dunn (1979) described 18 different elements involved in diagnosing an individual’slearning style and suggested that the majority of individuals have between six and fourteen ele-ments that strongly affect their learning style (Dunn, 1983). For example, under environmentalelements, Dunn and Dunn (1979) and Dunn (1983) argued that individuals respond differentlyto instruction based on the temperature and lighting of the room in which instruction occursand the formality of the physical environment of a classroom. In addition, Dunn (1983) arguedthat emotional elements such as motivation, persistence, responsibility, and structure affect theway that individuals respond to instruction, suggesting, for example, that “impersistent studentsoften need ‘breaks’ while they are learning” (p. 498). The sociological elements are based on theidea that some students work better individually while others work better collaboratively. Thephysical elements focus around perceptual strengths, intake, time of day, and need for mobility.Regarding perceptual strengths specifically, Dunn and Dunn (1979) claimed that 20% to 30%of students appear to be auditory, 40% are visual, and 30% to 40% are either tactual/kinesthetic,visual tactual, or some combination of the four major senses. Based on this, they argued thatwhen instruction is predominantly of one form (e.g., lecture, or lecture/discussion) teachersshould not be surprised that “so few students achieve as well as we believe they should”(p. 240). Therefore, Dunn (1983) stressed the importance of matching instruction to students’perceptual strengths.

The psychological elements of learning style include global versus analytic learners, left-versus right-brain learners, and impulsive versus reflective learners. Therefore, the way teachersintroduce lessons (sequentially for the analytic learner or describing the big picture for globallearner, for example) should be based on the learning styles of individuals or groups of students.Further, the way teachers solicit feedback from students would differ; impulsive students, whowill often call out answers, and reflective students, who will rarely volunteer information,require different instructional strategies according to Dunn (1983).

LEARNING STYLES: THE EVIDENCE BASE

While there are a number of models of learning styles and instruments for assessing them (e.g.,Canfield & Lafferty, 1970; Gregorc, 1979; Kolb, 1981), the Dunn and Dunn model (1993, 1999)has received the greatest attention, especially in relation to students with disabilities. Perhapsmost important in this regard was Dunn’s (1983) description of her model of learning stylesand methods of assessing learning styles, which appeared in Exceptional Children, arguably themost prominent research journal in special education. In that article, Dunn posited that learningstyles could be established for at least two distinct groups of exceptional students: those whoare gifted and talented and those who are “underachieving.” She noted that students “withlow reading achievement preferred an informal environment when studying or learning; wereadult-motivated rather than self-motivated; functioned best in the late morning; and preferredlearning through their tactile and kinesthetic senses” (p. 501). She also noted in this paper “by1978 we had revealed that many poorly reading children seemed to prefer low light” (p. 497).Finally, Dunn claimed that when students were taught with instructional strategies or materials


that complemented their learning styles increased academic achievement, improved attitudestoward school, and a reduction in discipline problems occurred.

A second important paper in the learning styles debate was Kavale and Forness’ (1987)report of the results of a meta-analysis that summarized 39 research studies examining theefficacy of modality-based instruction in special education. Kavale and Forness reported twomajor findings. First, the establishment of a modality preference yielded an effect size of .512,suggesting that “on average, 70% of subjects demonstrating a modality preference could bedifferentiated clearly on the basis of their test scores while 30% could not” (pp. 231–232).Second, teaching to a preferred modality resulted in an average effect size of .144, suggestingthat, in general, modality-based instruction resulted in a gain of 6 percentile ranks. Kavale andForness concluded that “no appreciable gain was found by differentiating instruction accordingto modality preference” (p. 238).

Dunn (1990) responded with a critical analysis of the Kavale and Forness (1987) meta-analysis, citing what she claimed were numerous examples of their “bias,” but it is worth notingthat the original Kavale and Forness meta-analysis was not a review or evaluation of Dunn’swork per se, but merely a comprehensive review of studies of modality-based instruction.In her critique, however, Dunn termed their search and circumscription of the literature base“capricious at best” (p. 352), noting that only two of her own studies had been included. Kavaleand Forness (1990) responded to this specific criticism by noting that “when even a cursoryexamination revealed a study to be so inadequate that its data were essentially meaningless,it was eliminated from consideration. This is the reason that only two of Dunn’s studies wereincluded in our analysis” (p. 358).

Subsequent to these exchanges, the debate continued with a meta-analysis by Dunn, Griggs,Olson, Bailey, and Gorman (1995); a critique of this meta-analysis by Kavale, Hirshoren, andForness (1998); a meta-analysis by Lovelace (2005); and a critique of Lovelace by Kavaleand LeFever (2007). These exchanges reiterated many of the earlier concerns noted by Kavaleand Forness (1990) regarding statistical issues or matters related to the interpretation of effectsizes. For example, although Dunn et al. (1995) reported a mean effect size of .755 based on areview of 36 studies, Kavale et al. (1998) noted that the conclusion by Dunn et al. (1995) thatinterventions implemented over the course of a year or more had greater effect, with a meaneffect size of 1.345 across two studies, was flawed because the effect size for a typical childreceiving typical instruction for one year would be 1.00, so those studies whose mean effectsize was 1.345 a year or more later probably had much smaller true effects. Beyond thesetechnical concerns, we find more troubling the methods used by Dunn et al. (1995) and othersto locate studies for their meta-analyses: “The search process began with the identification ofdescriptors for a computer-based search of the Dissertation Abstracts International, Researchin Education from 1980 to 1990” (p. 355). We wonder specifically why a search for studieswould begin with a search for dissertations. Indeed the literature ultimately retained for reviewincluded 35 dissertations and 1 published study. Additional sources searched were the AnnotatedBibliography of Research (1992, 1995) and Research on the Dunn and Dunn Model (1992,1995), both of which are documents produced by the Center for the Study of Learning andTeaching Styles at St. John’s University. Not surprisingly, given the search methods used, 20of the dissertations retained for review were from St. John’s University, where R. Dunn wasa faculty member. The one published study examined the impact of learning style preferences(specifically perceptual preferences) on employee training effectiveness, and was published in

LEARNING STYLES 13

Human Resource Development Quarterly. One can conclude logically from this search processand the studies located that either Dunn et al. did not conduct a full and comprehensive literaturesearch, or that very, very few school-based studies of learning styles have been published ineducational journals (indeed none in the body of literature used for this meta-analysis).

While Kavale and colleagues have been perhaps most prominent in their critical appraisalof learning styles’ empirical basis, others have concurred with their general conclusions.Stahl (1999), for example, was particularly skeptical about the value of learning styles in thecontext of reading instruction, and has taken particular exception to arguments that have beenadvanced by Çarbo (1983) with regard to students with disabilities. Çarbo argued essentiallythat reading achievement is dramatically improved when reading programs match students’learning (or reading) styles. Çarbo (1988) argued that phonics instruction was neither necessarynor effective for teaching students to read. While Çarbo later conceded that phonics instructionis a necessary component of good reading instruction, she continued to caution that phonics “ismost appropriate for students whose reading styles match the phonics method” (2005, p. 48).

Partly in response to Çarbo’s writings, Stahl (1999) provided an overview of research reviewson learning styles from which he concludes “one cannot reliably measure children’s readingstyles and even if one could, matching children to reading programs by learning styles doesnot improve their learning” (p. 2). Furthermore, Stahl (1999) highlighted the problem of citinga preponderance of unpublished studies when promoting learning-styles–based instruction. Insummary, despite a wealth of published papers espousing learning styles, there remains a dearthof published research in support of matching instruction to learning styles. The only reviewsof which we are aware that provide support for a learning styles model (Çarbo, 1983; Dunnet al., 1995; Lovelace, 2005) rely heavily on unpublished reports (which lack the check-pointof peer review), and too often include a preponderance of unpublished dissertations from asingle university.

We note further that quality indicators for research in special education were published in2005 (see Odom et al., 2005), and increasingly scholars are attending to these indicators bothin publishing their own studies and in producing quantitative syntheses of literature (see Cook,Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009). We encourage future reviewers to attend carefully and moreexplicitly to the methodological quality of studies when reviewing learning styles literature, andwe encourage readers to evaluate existing studies of the impact of teaching based on learningstyles with an equally critical eye toward methodological soundness.

APPROPRIATELY MATCHING INSTRUCTIONTO INDIVIDUAL NEEDS

If instruction is to be effective, it must be matched to individual needs. Where we differ withthose who would espouse learning style as a relevant instructional variable is in delineatingindividual needs that are instructionally relevant. Consider the example of reading. We knowthat to become proficient readers, students must learn the letters of the alphabet and the soundsthose letters make (e.g., Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; National Reading Panel, 2000). This isfollowed by an essentially developmental sequence in which students must master increasinglysophisticated phonological skills and acquire orthographic knowledge as they learn to segmentspoken words into parts and blend parts of words together. Thus, faced with the task of


teaching reading to a group of youngsters, a teacher must ascertain through careful assessmentwhich skills a student has, which are emerging, and which are lacking entirely. Based on this,instruction may be individualized so that students are taught content at their instructional level.Note that large or small groups may be formed based on similar content needs, and one-on-one instruction may even be provided in small doses for students with particularly acute skilldeficits.

Determining instructional levels, students’ strengths and needs, and the level of content to betaught is only the first step in individualizing. Suppose a student has an identified disability—a learning disability or attention deficit disorder, for example. Teachers may need to furtherindividualize in any number of ways. They might use direct instruction and provide repeatedpractice in learning to say the sounds in a word slowly (e.g., “m-m-m-a-a-a-n-n-n”) or toblend sounds together to form words (e.g., blending together the /a/ sound and the /m/ soundto form the word “am”) (e.g., Reading Mastery Plus, 2002). They might provide extendedopportunities for distributed practice or offer more frequent or overt positive reinforcement forcorrect responses for students who do not respond readily or cannot attend successfully formeaningful periods of instruction, while allowing students who master skills more quickly tocontinue to move through the curricular sequence. Again, note that individualization carries thehallmark of deciding what children know and need to know, and then modifying instructionfor those who struggle.

Differentiated instruction adds to the notion of individualization primarily in scope andbreadth of application. Differentiated instruction goes beyond the basic concepts of individu-alization and provides additional guidelines for teachers dealing with a diverse classroom. Aswe have noted, differentiated instruction is a teacher’s response to students’ individual needs.Teachers can differentiate the (a) content that is being taught, (b) process that is being used toteach the content, and/or (c) learning product that is expected according to students’ readiness,interests, and learning profiles through a variety of instructional strategies (Tomlinson, 1999).For example, content can be differentiated by providing text at varied reading levels or byproviding examples based on individual students’ interests. The process, or the way in whichthe content is taught, can be differentiated by using cooperative grouping activities and assigningdifferent roles to students based on their learning characteristics or developing activities thatseek multiple perspectives on the content being taught. Finally, products can be differentiated bytiered assignments or providing a range of formats for a final project (i.e. poster, presentation,or performance). All of these suggestions build on the underlying concepts of individualizedinstruction. Differentiated instruction merely promotes more overtly that educators must thinkabout individualizing instruction in the context of content, process, and product.

Stahl (1999) supported this notion when he argued that although children are in fact quitedifferent in their personalities and preferences, research demonstrates that these differences havelittle to do with how successful a reader or writer they will become. Stahl suggested insteadthat differences in exposure to oral language or written text are far more important and likely toimpact the development of literacy skills. Therefore, Stahl suggested, “we ought to think aboutdifferent methods being appropriate for children at different stages in their development” (p. 4).Tomlinson (1999; 2003) supported this notion by stressing the importance of differentiatingbased on students’ readiness, but also stressed the importance of differentiating based onstudents’ interests. Stahl cautioned against doing this all the time and stressed the importanceof using different methods for different goals. He noted that

LEARNING STYLES 15

approaches that involve the children reading books of their own choice are important to developmotivated readers. But whole language approaches, which rely largely on children to choose

materials they read, tend not to be as effective as more teacher-directed approaches for developing

children’s word recognition or comprehension (p. 5).

As noted previously, Tomlinson (1999, 2003) promoted differentiating instruction based onstudents’ learning profiles (which includes the student’s learning style). However, Tomlinson(2009) cautioned education leaders that students’ learning profiles should not be used as areplacement for their readiness needs, and suggested that having the option to do an assignmentvia different learning modes (i.e. visual, auditory, or kinesthetic) will have little impact if thestudent is unable to read the textbook. Indeed, Stahl warned that educators trying to makethis type of differentiation work without focused attention on readiness and needs may wastevaluable instructional time and energy that could be better spent on implementing research-based practices. Based on this premise, Kavale and LeFever (2007) posed the question: “Howdoes the Dunn and Dunn Model fare in the context of instructional effectiveness?” (p. 95)and reported that even if the findings from heavily criticized meta-analyses and reviews areaccepted their model reveals modest efficacy when compared with other instructional methods(see Kavale, 2007 for a detailed description). Faced with increasing heterogeneity in classrooms,arguments to use proven or promising evidence-based practices over those with little to noempirical support or even modest efficacy seem more compelling than ever.

CONCLUSION

The history of special education has included a focus on individualizing instruction since itsearliest days. While special education has failed to live up to its full promise by most accounts,there have been periods of significant progress and success in our history, and we know thatspecial education done right can produce dramatic, positive results for students with disabilities(e.g., Kauffman, Bantz, & McCullough, 2002). We argue that special education that is true toits foundational concepts is most likely to meet with success.

Differentiated instruction represents the newest incarnation of schools’ attempts to meet theneeds of a diverse student population. Among the more prominent models of differentiation isTomlinson’s (2003) model, which proposes that teachers modify content, process, or products tomeet the varied needs of students. We agree that differentiation is clearly necessary, especiallyin the context of increasing diversity in classrooms. The need to modify content, process, andproduct is predicated on variations in students’ readiness, interests, and “learning profiles.”Acknowledging the need to differentiate, we nonetheless concur with Rock et al. (2008), whooffered advice on determining students’ readiness, interests, preferences, strengths, and needs.They suggested that while teachers might consider students’ styles of thinking, they should“not confuse this with learning styles. In fact, we urge resisting the temptation to try to matchinstructional methods with students’ preferred modalities because research does not supportsuch a practice” (p. 35).

The intuitive appeal of learning styles probably means that debate will not go away,and changing the mindset of teachers and teacher educators with regard to learning stylesis a herculean task. Perhaps science will ultimately carry the day. If so, it is our view


that (a) the dearth of published research studies on learning styles-based instruction, (b) thepreponderance of unpublished studies that form the “empirical basis” for learning styles, and(c) the prevalence of dissertations from a single university in this unpublished literature basewill lead researchers, teacher educators, and ultimately teachers to the following conclusions. Itis wise to individualize instruction. Differentiation provides one framework for individualizingin the context of a heterogeneous classroom. Focusing on students’ learning styles adds little,if anything, of educational benefit to this process.

NOTE

1. For the purposes of this paper, we ignore for now the concept of “intelligence preferences,” whichwe assume refers to the theory of multiple intelligences, although we are aware of no empirical

evidence that this theory carries any instructional relevance for teachers (see Lloyd & Hallahan,

2007; Stahl, 1999; Willingham, 2004).

REFERENCES

Anderson, K. M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51, 49–54.

Annotated Bibliography of Research (1992, 1995). New York: St. John’s University for the Study of Learning and

Teaching Styles.

Canfield, A. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1970). Learning Styles Inventory. Detroit, MI: Humanics Media.

Çarbo, M. (1983). Research in reading and learning style: Implications for exceptional children. Exceptional Children,

49, 486–494.

Çarbo, M. (1988). Debunking the great phonics myth. Phi Delta Kappa, 70, 226–240.

Çarbo, M. (2005). What principals need to know about reading instruction. Principal, 85(September/October),

46–49.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education.

Exceptional Children, 75, 365–383.

Dunn, R. (1983). Learning style and its relation to exceptionality at both ends of the spectrum. Exceptional Children,

49, 496–506.

Dunn, R. (1990). Bias over substance: A critical analysis of Kavale and Forness’ report on modality-based instruction.


Dunn, R. S., Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research in learning styles. Educational Leadership, 46(8),

50–58.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they : : : can they : : : be matched?

Educational Leadership, 36, 238–244.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical

approaches for grades 7–12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1999). The complete guide to the learning styles in-service system. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Beasley, M., & Gorman, B. S. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and

Dunn model of learning-style preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88, 353–362.

Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Their nature and effects. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning

styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 19–26). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School

Principals.

Haager, D., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction in inclusive classroom: The special educator’s guide.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Hallahan, D. P., Lloyd, J. W., Kauffman, J. M., Weiss, M., & Martinez, E. (2005). Introduction to learning disabilities

(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

LEARNING STYLES 17

Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2009). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education

(11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Kauffman, J. M., Bantz, J., & McCullough, J. (2002). Separate and better: A special public school class for students

with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptionality, 10, 149–170.

Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2006). Children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders: A history of

their education. Austin, TX: ProEd, Inc.

Kauffman, J. M., Mock, D. R., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2008). Effective service delivery models. In R. J.

Morris & N. Mather (Eds.), Evidence-based interventions for students with learning and behavioral challenges

(pp. 359–378). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kavale, K. A. (2007). Quantitative research synthesis: Meta-analysis of research on meeting special educational needs.

In L. Florian (ED.), The Sage handbook of special education. London: Sage.

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching.


Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1990). Substance over style: A rejoinder to Dunn’s animadversions. Exceptional

Children, 56, 357–361.

Kavale, K. A., Hirshoren, A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). Meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of

learning-style preferences: A critique of what was Dunn. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 75–80.

Kavale, K. A., & LeFever, G. B. (2007). Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences: Critique of Lovelace

meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 94–97.

Kolb, D. A. (1981). Disciplinary inquiry norms and student learning styles: Diverse pathways for growth. In A.

Pickering (Ed.), The modern American college. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Lloyd, J. W., & Hallahan, D. P. (2007). Advocacy and reform of special education. In J. B. Crockett, M. M. Gerber,

& T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman

(pp. 245–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lovelace, M. K. (2005). Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dunn model. The Journal of

Educational Research, 98, 176–183.

Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combi-

nation for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure, 53, 267–277.

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research

literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports to the subgroups (NIH Publication No.

00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Odom, S., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2005, Winter). Research in special

education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.

Regan, K. (2009). Improving the way we think about students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 41(5), 60–65.

Reading Mastery Plus. (2002). Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw Hill.

Research on the Dunn and Dunn Model (1992, 1995) New York: St. John’s University’s Center for the Study of

Learning and Teaching Styles.

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACG: A framework for differentiating classroom

instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31–47.

Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Stahl, S. A. (1999). Different strokes for different folks? American Educator, Fall 1999, 1–5.

Stradling, B., & Saunders, L. (1993). Differentiation in practice: Responding to the needs of all pupils. Educational

Research, 35, 127–137.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2009) Learning profiles and achievement. School Administrator, 66(2), 28–34.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K. Conover, L. A., & Reynolds,

T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically

diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119–145.

Willingham, D. T. (2004). Reframing the mind: Howard Gardner became a hero among educators simply by redefining

talents as “intelligences.” Education Next, Summer, 19–24.

Copyright of Exceptionality is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Learning Styles in the Age of Differentiated Instruction