Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles:

Two Complementary Dimensions

STEPHEN J. DENIG
Niagara University

This paper compares the theories of multiple intelligences and learning styles to
suggest ways that teachers using a combination of both theories may be able to improve
student learning over the range of intelligences. The author proposes a research
format for the benefit of future research.

Almost every teacher today has heard the terms multiple intelligences and
learning styles. However, how many teachers know the definition of an
intelligence and know the number of distinct intelligences? In addition, how
many teachers could define what we mean by learning style and identify the
distinct elements of learning styles? Some, perhaps, but not all, would know
this. This article focuses on the eight multiple intelligences identified by
Howard Gardner and the 21 elements of learning style identified by
Kenneth and Rita Dunn. This selection is not meant to imply that Gardner’s
and the Dunns’ approaches are the only understandings of the complex
issues of human intelligence and learning.
Are multiple intelligences and learning styles simply two different names
and two different enumerations of the same thing? Are they similar, or are
they distinct? In a previous paper (Dunn, Denig, & Lovelace, 2001), the
similarities and differences between these two concepts were examined, and
it was proposed that, while distinct, they are not competing concepts, and
they work together to contribute to learning.
This article examines these two concepts to conceptualize how they can
work together to contribute to learning. I conclude with several future areas
of research. First, however, the two concepts need to be explained.

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE
The modern study of intelligence can be traced to Alfred Binet, whose
research was conducted at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of
the 20th century. This was the time that the study of psychology moved
away from prescientific understandings to more empirical investigations

Teachers College Record Volume 106, Number 1, January 2004, pp. 96–111
Copyright r by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 97

(Corno et al., 2002). Binet, collaborating with Theodore Simon, believed

that intelligence was measurable (Binet & Simon, 1905). They proposed a
series of questions that could be quickly administered and scored. The
higher a person scored, it was assumed, the more intelligent the person.
The strength of this test was that large groups of people could be tested at
minimal cost and the more intelligent among them identified. For example,
during World War I, many men were drafted, and there was a need to
identify quickly the more intelligent men, so they could be trained as
officers. The test had practical use and was economic and efficient. Two
weaknesses of this test were that all of the questions were directly related to
either mathematics or language skills, thus measuring intelligence by only
these two domains, and the entire test was analytic, a processing style
inhibiting the ease with which global people could respond (Brennan,
1984). Anyone who has taken the SAT or the ACT exams as the rite of
passage to college knows how persistent the dominance of these two
domains is in conceptualizing intelligence. These two domains often are
expressed in a single score, which is meant to be a measure of general
intelligence.

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES
Corno et al. (2002) note that the construct of a single overarching general
ability is widely accepted. They report that today there are approximately
120 different measures of general ability. Yet they also acknowledge that not
all scholars are in agreement, and they cite in particular the work of
Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg.
Both Gardner and Sternberg advocate that intelligence should not be
reduced to a single overarching construct. Gardner (1983) first identified
seven distinct intelligences. Today, he (Gardner, 1999) identifies an eighth
intelligence. Sternberg (1998) argues that that people possess three inde-
pendent abilities: analytic ( judging, comparing, contrasting, etc.), creative
(inventing, discovering, imaging, etc.), and practical (applying, imple-
menting, using, etc.). The focus in this article is on Gardner’s multiple
intelligences.
Howard Gardner advocates that there are at least eight intelligences that
need to be considered (Nelson, 1998):
 Linguistic: the potential to use language, as used in reading, writing,
telling stories, memorizing dates, and thinking in words
 Logical-mathematical: the potential for understanding cause and
effect and for manipulating numbers, quantities, and operations, as used
in math, reasoning, logic, problem solving, and recognizing patterns
98 Teachers College Record

 Spatial: the potential for representing the spatial world internally in

one’s mind as used in reading maps and charts, drawing, solving mazes
and puzzles, imagining and visualizing
 Kinesthetic: the potential for using one’s whole body or parts of the
body, as used in athletics, dancing, acting, crafting, and using tools
 Musical: the potential for thinking in music; for hearing, recognizing,
and remembering patterns, as used in singing, identifying sounds, and in
remembering melodies and rhythms
 Interpersonal: the potential for working with others, as used in
understanding people, leading and organizing others, communicating,
resolving conflicts, and selling
 Intrapersonal: the potential for understanding ourselves, as used in
understanding self, recognizing one’s own strengths and weaknesses,
and setting personal goals
 Naturalistic: the potential for discriminating among plants, animals,
rocks, and the world around us, as used in understanding nature, making
distinctions, identifying flora and fauna

Intelligence is more than a score on a typical standardized pencil-and-

paper test used to predict success in school. Such traditional intelligence
tests do not measure the ability of a chess player, an athlete, or a master
violinist. Gardner (1999) opines that these individuals, as well as many
others, exhibit intelligences that are not measured by these tests. He defines
an intelligence as ‘‘biopsychological potential to process information that
can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products
that are of value in a culture’’ (pp. 33–34).
For a potential to be identified as an intelligence it must meet eight criteria:
1. It must be rooted in the brain, so that an injury to the brain could rob
a person of that specific potential (e.g., a blow to the head causing loss of
linguistic ability).

2. It must be rooted in our evolutionary history, such that our early

ancestors exhibited that potential (e.g., early humans had the naturalistic
ability to discriminate among the different species of plants).

3. There has be an identifiable core operation or set of operations asso-

ciated with that potential (e.g., pitch, rhythm, etc. are core operations of
musical ability).

4. It must be susceptible to being encoded in symbol (e.g., mathematical

symbols).
 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 99

5. It must possess a distinctive developmental path to become expert in

that ability (e.g., trained clinicians with strong interpersonal skills).

6. It is exemplified by the existence of idiot savants, prodigies, and

other exceptional people (e.g., Rainman’s mathematical ability).

7. There is evidence from experimental psychology that the ability is

distinct from other abilities (e.g., a person can walk and talk at the same
time because the two abilities evidence different abilitiesFlinguistic and
kinesthetic).

8. It is supported by psychometric findings (e.g., a major league athlete

might score high in ability hit a ball but low in the ability to hit a note).

Gardner (1999) has considered adding either existential or spiritual

intelligence as a ninth intelligence but has not yet done so. He sees that the
existential and the spiritual are similar, with existential being more
narrowly defined and spiritual being more broadly defined. He concludes
(p. 64) that the existential, as narrowly defined, might fit the previous
criteria for an intelligence, but spiritual does not. Because he has not yet
affirmed that existential is a ninth intelligence, it is not considered as one on
the intelligences in this article.
As may be suggested by the previous criteria, the theory of multiple
intelligences emerged from previous psychological studies. However, it
must be noted that none of those previous investigations were involved with
Gardner’s construct of multiple intelligences. Gardner has been totally
honest and forthright about the lack of experimental research on his theory.
He notes, ‘‘While Multiple Intelligences theory is consistent with much
empirical evidence, it has not been subjected to strong experimental tests.
. . .Within the area of education, the applications of the theory are currently
being examined in many projects. Our hunches will have to be revised
many times in light of actual classroom experience’’ (Gardner, 1993, p. 33).
Nevertheless, even without the existence of a strong research base,
there is much popular support for the concept of multiple intelligences.
Some strengths of the theory in relationship to the learning process are as
follows:

 It serves as impetus of reform in our schools, ‘‘leading to a re-

evaluation of those subjects typically taught in school, with increased
emphasis placed on the arts, nature, physical culture, and other topics
traditionally limited to the periphery of the curriculum’’ (Armstrong,
2003, p. 4).
100 Teachers College Record

 It is child centered and develops children’s innate potential rather

than requiring them to master extraneous academic information.
 It encourages children to grow and to develop their potential as
responsible human beings.
 It challenges educators to find ‘‘ways that will work for this student
learning this topic’’ (Gardner, 1999, p. 154).
As Gardner (1999) has written:

I would happily send my children to a school that takes differences

among children seriously, that shares knowledge among differences
with children and parents, that encourages children to assume
responsibility for their own learning, and that presents materials in
such a way that each child has the maximum opportunity to master
those materials and to show others and themselves what they have
learned and understood. (pp. 91–92)

LEARNING STYLES
There are many different advocates of learning styles, and they propose
different constructs. Snow, Corno, and Jackson (1996) summarize the work
of four theorists or groups of theorists. Keefe measures learning styles in
terms of cognitive skills and instructional preferences. Pintrich Smith and
others opine that value components, expectancy components, affective
components, cognitive strategies, and resource management combine to
form the construct of learning style. Researchers led by Schmeck measure
learning styles in terms of academic self-concept, reflective processing,
agentic processing, and methodical study. Finally, Weinstein and colleagues
combine 10 dimensions in the measure of learning styles: anxiety, attitude,
concentration, information processing, scheduling, selective main ideas,
self-testing, study aids, and test strategies.
This article focuses on the construct of learning styles proposed by Rita
and Kenneth Dunn. As is noted later, researchers at over 120 universities
have explored this construct at every level of education from pre-K to
graduate school. I focus on this particular construct because I seek to build
on this extensive research record to investigate empirically the synthesis of
multiple intelligences and learning styles.
The Dunns opine that people are not necessarily intelligent because they
have a potential, talent, or innate ability. Rather, people can demonstrate
intelligence because of the manner in which they perceive, comprehend,
adapt to new situations, learn from experience, seize the essential factors of
a complex matter, demonstrate mastery over complexity, solve problems,
 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 101

ELEMENTS
STIMULI

Environmental

Emotional

Sociological

Physiological

Psychological

Simultaneous or Successive Processing

Figure 1. Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model (Dunn & Dunn, 1993)

critically analyze, and make productive decisions. They remind us that

human beings are not necessarily intelligent because they have potential or
talent; we all know some who have wasted or damaged both their potential
and their talent because they did not think intelligently (Denig & Lovelace,
1999).
As noted previously, Gardner defines an intelligence as ‘‘as biopsycho-
logical potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural
setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture’’
(Gardner, 1999, pp. 33–34). The Dunns (1993, 1999) define learning style as
the way in which each person begins to concentrate on, process, internalize,
and remember new and difficult academic content. Their model addresses
21 unique elements. Although no one is influenced by all 21 elements, most
students are affected by 6 to 14. Those 21 elements are classified into
environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological, and psychological
variables (see Figure 1).

 Environmental: This variable is composed of four elements: sound,

light, temperature, and design.
 Sound: Some learners require absolute quiet to learn, while others
do best with music or other sound in the background.
 Light: Some learners require bright learning to concentrate,
whereas others require a softer and perhaps more focused light.
102 Teachers College Record

 Temperature: Some learners require warmth, whereas others

require a cooler environment, while concentrating on new and
difficult academic knowledge or skills.
 Design: Some prefer more formal seating (e.g., hard chairs),
whereas others prefer casual, informal seating (e.g., sofa).
 Emotional: This variable is also composed of four elements:
 Motivation: Some learners are eager to begin learning something
new or difficult, whereas others need to be challenged by someone
else to begin.
 Persistent: Some learners remain focused on an academic task
until it has been completed, whereas others need to be reminded to
complete the task at hand.
 Responsibility: Some do what is required, whereas others do the
opposite of what they are supposed to do (conformists vs.
nonconformists).
 Structure: Some rely on the directives of teachers or peers to
provide structure to a task, whereas others determine their own
structure for completing a task.
 Sociological: This variable is composed of six elements:
 Self: 13 percent of students (often our gifted) perform best when
studying alone (Dunn & Griggs, 2003).
 Pair: Some prefer to study in pairs with a peer.
 Peers: Some (less than one third) prefer to study with a group of
peers (Dunn & Griggs, 2003).
 Team: Some prefer to study with a large group of peers.
 Adult: Some (about 28%) prefer to work with an adult (Dunn &
Griggs, 2003).
 Varied: Some function in varied ways, whereas others learn best in
a single pattern.
 Physiological: This variable is composed of four elements:
 Perceptual: Some students learn best by hearing (auditory)
complex material, others by reading or seeing it (visual), others
when able to able to manipulate items with their hands (tactual, as
when doodling or taking notes), and still others learn most effectively
when moving while they are concentrating (kinesthetically, such as
tapping their feet or walking).
 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 103

 Intake: Some learners require a drink or something to eat; others

ignore drink and food when concentrating on new and difficult
material.
 Time: Some prefer to concentrate in the morning, others in the
early or late afternoon, and some prefer the evening.
 Mobility: Some sit and concentrate for long periods of time
without much movement; others require the ability to move about.
 Psychological: This variable is composed of three elements:
 Global-analytic processors: Global processors learn best through
an initial overview of the content or concept to develop an under-
standing of how the content relates to them before they can focus on
the facts related to it. They then focus on the related facts. Analytics
learn facts in a step-by-step sequence, gradually building to increased
understandings by first examining the facts and t hen building toward
an understanding of the concept (Dunn & Griggs, 2003).
 Hemisphericity: some learners tend to employ a right side of the
brain style, whereas others use a left-side pattern when concentrating
on new information.
 Impulsive-reflective: Some learners reach conclusions by going
through a thorough process, whereas others reach conclusion quickly
and have little fear of failure (being wrong).

Each learner has a primary learning style, and can be taught how to
study and concentrate capitalizing on that style. Dunn and Dunn (1993;
Dunn & Griggs, 2003) propose a variety of study methods that learners can
adapt to capitalize on that strength (e.g., Contract Activity Packages for the
nonconforming and the high achievers who are motivated and auditory or
visual, Programmed Learning Sequences for those who need external
structure and who are visual and tactual, Tactual Resources, and Kinesthetic
Resources, small-group strategies for the peer oriented, and Multisensory
Instructional Packages for students who require varied types of reinforce-
ment). Figure 2 outlines some of these strategies.
However, most learners also have a secondary style, which can be used to
reinforce initial learning effectively. In addition, educators should vary their
teaching style to accommodate their students’ varied styles. Although
without prior knowledge, many teachers cannot perceive how to respond to
the learning styles of 20 or more individuals with different styles in the same
class simultaneously, hundreds of schools or school districts internationally
have established successful learning style programs in which students
achieve statistically higher standardized achievement test scores within
104 Teachers College Record

_____________________________________________________________________________

Alternative Methods Responding to

_____________________________________________________________________________

Learning Style Other Student

Elements Characteristics
_____________________________________________________________________________

Contract Activity Environmental preferences Self-pacing

Package Sociological preferences Independence
Perceptual strengths Non-conformist
Physiological preferences Creativity
Persistence
Motivation
Structure
Analytic processing style
_____________________________________________________________________________
Programmed Learning Persistence Self-apcing
Sequence Sociological preferences Variety
Environmental preferences Reading difficulties
Physiological preferences Need for feedback
Structure
Visual/Tactual strengths
Global processing style
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tactual Resources Tactual perceptual strength
Environmental preferences
Physiological preferences
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kinesthetic Resources Kinesthetic perceptual strength
Environmental preferences
Physiological preferences
_____________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2. Alternative Methods Responsive to Students’ Different Learning

Styles (compiled by Rita Dunn and Andrea Honigsfeld; cf. Dunn, Denig, &
Lovelace, 2001)

1 year of learning style implementation (Dunn & DeBello, 1999; Dunn &
Griggs, 2003). Regardless of skepticism, students learn more effectively
when educators teach in a manner consistent with each student’s primary
and secondary learning style (Dunn & Griggs, 2003).
A person’s learning style is determined through a variety of age-
appropriate instruments (see www.learningstyles.net; a computer version is
also available, see Hurley, 2000). Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Gorman, and
Beasley (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 42 experimental studies
conducted across the United States at 13 different universities during the
1980s. That analysis revealed that students’ learning style preferences were
 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 105

the strengths that enabled them to master new and difficult information,
regardless of the researcher, the university where the research had been
conducted, the students’ grade level, or the element(s) examined. The
overall, unweighted, group effect size value (r) was .384 and the weighted
effect size value was .353 with a mean difference (d) of .755. Referring to the
standard normal curve, this suggested that students whose learning styles
were accommodated would be expected to achieve 75% of a standard
deviation higher than students who had not had their learning styles
accommodated. This indicated that matching students’ learning style
preferences with educational interventions compatible with those prefer-
ences was beneficial to their academic achievement.
A second meta-analysis of 76 experimental studies conducted at multiple
universities with the Dunn and Dunn model was completed by Lovelace
(2002). The total sample size (N) was 7,196 and the total number of
individual effect sizes was 168. Twenty-one dissertations came from 17
universities other than the one at which this meta-analysis was conducted;
four dissertations were done at the same university. The overall data
reported significantly higher test scores when the Dunns’ learning style
strategies were employed and compared with traditional teaching, regard-
less of the university at which the study was conducted. Most effect sizes
were medium to large dependent on the elements tested. Very few effect
sizes were small, but some elements affect students more than others do.
Studies have been conducted at more than 120 institutions of higher
education with a variety of model-related instructional approaches at every
level. Most research has concentrated on the K–12 levels. However,
research has been conducted on infants and on adults as diverse as law
students (Russo, 2002), nurses (O’Hare, 2002), and teachers (Rowan, 1988).
Those data documented that when academic underachievers were taught
new and difficult (for them) content through instructional approaches that
responded to their learning style strengths, they achieved statistically higher
standardized achievement test scores than they did when the approach was
dissonant from their style (Dunn & DeBello, 1999; Research, 2000).
Practitioners throughout the United States have reported statistically
higher standardized achievement and attitude test scores after implement-
ing the Dunn and Dunn model. Those gains were documented for poorly achi-
eving and special education students in urban, suburban, and rural schools
(Andrews, 1990; Brunner & Majewski, 1990; Dunn & DeBello, 1999; Elliot,
1991; Gadwa & Griggs, 1985; Geiser et al., 1999; Klavas, 1993; Koshuta &
Koshuta 1993; Lemmon, 1986; Mickler & Zippert, 1987; Neely & Alm,
1992, 1993; Nelson et al., 1993; Orsak, 1990; Quinn, 1993; Stone, 1992).
Also, research indicates that several of the learning style elements are
correlated with one another. Strongly analytic learners often tend to prefer
concentrating in brightly illuminated, quiet, formal seating without breaks
106 Teachers College Record

or snacks, whereas strongly global learners often tend to prefer concentra-

ting in a softly lit, casual (informal) environment with music, periodic
breaks, and snacks (Dunn, Bruno, Sklar, & Beaudry, 1990; Dunn,
Cavanaugh, Eberle, & Zenhausern, 1982).

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MODELS

Although both Gardner and the Dunns challenge educators to change the
manner in which they teach, the two advocated models differ in that
Gardner stresses the need to change instruction to capitalize on students’
abilities, whereas the Dunns suggest changing instruction to capitalize on
students’ learning styles. That is, multiple intelligences addresses what is
taught (the product); learning styles addresses how it is taught (the process).
Learning styles research has evidenced that any content can be mastered
when taught through students’ strengths.
Gardner stated that students learn intuitively. Learning style practi-
tioners have found that some students are intuitive; many others are not
and require structure and supervision. Multiple intelligences proponents
advocate making changes in the methodology used in the classroom, but
most emphasize using students’ talents in the same way, at the same time,
and in the same amount of time. Learning style proponents agree that the
delivery system needs to be changed. However, because analytics learn
differently from globals, and auditory, visual, tactual, and kinesthetic
students each begin, reinforce, and retain what they have learned through
different perceptual strengths, learning style advocates counsel teachers to
use different instructional resources in a different sequence in accord with
how each learns best.
Both multiple intelligences and learning styles discuss kinesthetic
learners. However, multiple intelligences does not differentiate between
kinesthetic and tactual learners. Learning style proponents, on the other
hand, do differentiate between the two and advocate teaching them
differently. Kinesthetic learners are those students who learn through
whole-body activities and experiences, and tactual learners are those
students who learn well with their hands.
Finally, as noted previously, there is little experimental research on
multiple intelligences, whereas there is a strong research base evidenced for
learning styles. This in no way suggests that one is better than the other.
Rather, the purpose of this article is to propose that if we examine multiple
intelligences and learning styles as different and complementary, we may be
able to create a research base that demonstrates an increase in student
learning across the whole spectrum of intelligences, including standardized
achievement tests.
 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 107

A PROPOSED SYNTHESIS
Gardner (1993) opined that ‘‘each intelligence may require its own specific
educational theory’’ (p. 48). I propose that a synthesis of multiple intelli-
gences with learning styles will be helpful in discerning the ‘‘specific
educational theory’’ required by each intelligence. This proposal builds on
the insight of Nelson (1998), who proposed that people who are smart in an
intelligence learn best through methods associated with that intelligence:
 Verbal-linguistic learn best through reading, hearing, and seeing
words and speaking, writing, discussing, and debating ideas.
 Math-logical learn best through working with patterns and relation-
ships, classifying and categorizing, and working with the abstract.
 Spatial learn best in working with pictures and colors, visualizing and
using the mind’s eye, and drawing.
 Bodily-kinesthetic learn best touching, moving, and processing
knowledge through bodily sensation.
 Musical learn best with rhythm and melody, singing, and listening to
music and melodies.
 Interpersonal learn best through sharing, comparing and relating
with others, interviewing, and cooperating.
 Intrapersonal learn best through working alone, doing self-paced
projects, and reflecting.
 Naturalists learn best when working in nature, exploring living
things, and learning about plants and natural events.

Some of these methods by which people who are strong in a multiple

intelligence learn best are suggestive of the various learning styles, by which
learners process new and difficult information. Howard Gardner insists that
people can develop, in varying degrees, each of the eight intelligences. Rita
and Kenneth Dunn remind educators that students will learn best when
they are taught and when they learn in a manner consistent with their
primary and secondary learning styles.
What I propose is that multiple intelligences and learning styles form two
dimensions graphically represented by a grid (cf. Figure 3). The eight
multiple intelligences form the horizontal axis of the grid, and the 21
learning styles elements form the vertical axis. Are there correlations
between the multiple intelligences and the elements of learning styles that
can help people to develop all eight intelligences? This research can be
approached in several ways.
108 Teachers College Record

Verbal- Math Spatial Bodily- Musical Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalist

Linguistic Logic Kinesthetic
Sound
Light
Temperature
Design
Motivation
Persistence
Responsibility
Structure
Self
Pairs
Peers
Teams
Adult
Varied
Perceptual
Intake
Time
Mobility
Global-Analytic
Hemisphericity
Impulsive-Reflective

Figure 3. Proposed Synthesis of Multiple Intelligence and Learning Styles

First, Nelson (1998) identified for each multiple intelligence several

people who exhibit smarts in that intelligence. For example, she suggested
Maya Angelou as exhibiting strong verbal-linguistic; Pablo Picasso, strong
spatial; and Charles Darwin, strong naturalist. Teachers could identify
students in their schools who exhibit a strong intelligence and use the
Productivity Environment Preference Survey to determine their learning
styles. A simple correlation could be run with the data to see which learning
style elements correlate with each intelligence. If several correlations are
found, a multiple regression could be run to determine which elements are
the best predictors of an intelligence. This would be exploratory.
Second, confirmatory research should be done. In a study of
approximately 6,000 students in nine cultures, Milgram, Dunn, and Price
(1993) identified which learning style elements appeared to be characte-
ristic of adolescents who exhibited a certain intelligence. For example,
students who were gifted mathematically appeared to have essentially
similar learning styles across nations. Their styles, however, were different
from students who were gifted in art, music, or athleticsFwhose styles also
were essentially similar across nations. Do students who are bodily
kinesthetic have a preference for mobility? Not necessarily. Do people
who are musical have a stronger auditory perceptual strength than visual?
Neither. Interestingly, students who are musically inclined tend to be
kinesthetic: They feel the music and rhythms (Kreitner, 1981). Since music
is highly structured, do they exhibit a strong preference for structure?
Would people who are interpersonal exhibit a stronger preference for
learning in pairs, with peers, in groups, than people who are intrapersonal?
 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 109

Or, because many intrapersonal people tend to place themselves under the
guidance of a trained mentor, do they exhibit a strong adult (expert)
orientation? Finally, would naturalist exhibit strong global strength because
they must first see the balance of nature before they see the different places
of animals and plants? Teachers would again identify students who exhibit a
strong intelligence. Having proposed different correlations, shouldn’t we
test the learning style of each person and determine if the data confirms or
denies the proposed correlation?
People are different and they have different combinations of intelli-
gences. All of the intelligences are important. Gardner (1993) stated, ‘‘If we
can mobilize the full range of human intelligences and ally them to an
ethical sense, we can help to increase the likelihood of our survival on this
planet, and perhaps even contribute to our thriving’’ (p. 12). If correlations
are found, then the research would suggest that by using a variety of
teaching styles that are sensitive to the learning styles of students, then
Howard Gardner’s dream might be fulfilled.

References
Andrews, R. H. (1990). The development of a learning styles program in a low socioeconomic,
underachieving North Carolina elementary school. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning
Disabilities International, 6, 307–314.
Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostique du niveaux intellectuel
des anormaux [New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of the abnormal].
L’anne´e psychologique, 11, 236–245.
Brennan, P. K. (1984). An analysis of the relationships among hemispheric preference and
analytic/global cognitive style, two elements of learning style, method of instruction, gender,
and mathematics achievement of tenth-grade geometry students (Doctoral dissertation, St.
John’s University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(11), 3271A.
Brunner, C. E., & Majewski, W. S. (1990). Mildly handicapped students can succeed with
learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 21–23.
Corno, L., Cronback, L. J., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D. F., Mandinach, E. B., Porteus, A. W., &
Talbert, J. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E Snow.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunn, R., Bruno, J., Sklar, R. I., & Beaudry, J. S. (1990). Effects of matching and mismatching
minority developmental college students’ hemispheric preferences on mathematics scores.
Journal of Educational Research, 83, 283–288.
Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D., Eberle, B., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Hemispheric preference: The
newest element of learning style. The American Biology Teacher, 44, 291–294.
Dunn, R. & DeBello, T. C. (Eds.). (1999). Improved test scores, attitudes, and behaviors in America’s
schools: Supervisors’ success stories. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Dunn, R., Denig, S., & Lovelace, M. (2001). Multiple intelligences and learning styles: Two
sides of the same coin or different strokes for different folks. Teacher Librarian: The Journal
for School Library Professionals, 28(3), 9–15.
110 Teachers College Record

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1999). The complete guide to the learning styles inservice system. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (2003). Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn learning-style model research: Who,
what, when, where, and so what? New York: St. John’s University’s Center for the Study of
Learning and Teaching Styles.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Gorman, B., & Beasley, M. (1995). A meta-analytic validation
of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences. Journal of Educational Research,
88, 353–361.
Elliot, I. (1991). The reading place. Teaching K-8, 21(3), 30–34.
Gadwa, K., & Griggs, S. A. (1985). The school dropout: Implications for counselors. School
Counselor, 33(1), 9–17.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic
Books.
Geiser, W. F., Dunn, R, Deckinger, E. L., Denig, S., Sklar, R., & Beasley, M. (2000). Effects of
learning-style awareness and responsive study strategies on achievement, incidence of
study, and attitudes of suburban eighth-grade students. National Forum of Applied Educational
Research, 13(2), 37–49.
Hurley, E. K. (2000). Comparative reliability and validity of two text-oriented learning-style
diagnostic instruments and the CD-ROM version of Our Wonderful Learning Styles (Doctoral
dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstract International, 61(09), 3530A.
Klavas, A. (1994). In Greensboro, North Carolina: Learning style program boosts achievement
and test scores. The Clearing House, 67, 149–151.
Koshuta, V., & Koshuta, P. (1993). Learning styles in a one-room school. Educational Leadership,
50(7), 87.
Kreitner, K. R. (1981). Modality strengths and learning styles of musically talented high-school students
(Unpublished master’s thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Lemmon, P. (1985). A school where learning styles make a difference. Principal, 64(4), 26–28.
Lovelace, M. A. K. (2002). A meta-analysis of the Dunns’ model of learning styles. (Doctoral
dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstract International, 63(06), 2114A.
Mickler, M. L., & Zippert, C. P. (1987). Teaching strategies based on learning styles of adult
students. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–37.
Milgram, R., Dunn, R. & Price, G. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching and counseling gifted and talented
adolescents: An international learning style perspective. New York: Praeger.
Neely, R., & Alm, D. (1992). Meeting individual needs: A learning styles success story. The
Clearing House, 66, 109–113.
Neely, R., & Alm, D. (1993). Empowering students with style. Principal, 72(4), 32–35.
Nelson, B., Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Primavera, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Bacilious, Z., & Miller, R.
(1993). Effects of learning style intervention on students’ retention and achievement.
Journal of College Student Development, 34, 364–369.
Nelson, K. (1998). Developing students’ multiple intelligences. New York: Scholastic.
O’Hare, L. (2002). Effects of traditional versus learning-style presentations of course content in adult
health nursing on the achievement and attitudes of baccalaureate nursing students (Doctoral
dissertation, St. John’s University..
Orsak, L. (1990). Learning styles versus the Rip Van Winkle syndrome. Educational Leadership,
48(2), 19–20.
Quinn, R. (1993). The New York State compact for learning and learning styles. Learning Styles
Network Newsletter, 15(1), 1–2.
 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 111

Research on the Dunn and Dunn Model. (2000). New York: St. John’s University’s Center for the
Study of Learning and Teaching Styles.
Rowan, K. S. (1988). Learning styles and teacher in-service education (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Tennessee, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(02), 418A.
Russo, K. (2002). Teaching law students: An innovative approach. Academic Exchange Quarterly.,
6(4), 151–159.
Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative
functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 243–310). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Applying the triarchic theory of human intelligence in the classroom. In
R. J. Sternberg & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Intelligence, instruction, and assessment. (pp. 167–181).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stone, P. (1992). How we turned around a problem school. Principal, 71(2), 34–36.