Mathematics, Learning Disabilities, and Learning Styles: A Review of Perspectives Published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Abstract

Learning styles is the idea that there are unique ways in which individuals approach learning and process information. Though refuted, the idea of learning styles has not declined in peer-reviewed reports of empirical studies or teacher/practitioner resources. Some reports have also used learning styles as a tool for improving the mathematics education of students with learning disabilities—an area of interest for mathematics education and special education communities alike. In this paper, we review articles published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics to investigate the perspectives of learning styles at the intersection of mathematics education and learning disabilities. Analyses highlight the relationship between mathematics education, learning disabilities, and learning styles, and the varied meanings and perspectives of the articles’ authors. Of note is both the perpetuation of unfounded concepts and the lackluster response to explicit contests of the idea of learning styles.

1. Introduction

The mathematics education and special education fields have overlapping interests in educational experiences for students with learning disabilities. Research and practitioner publications alike emphasize the importance of mathematics teaching and learning, including inclusive education. Topics like student identification and assessment, instructional strategies, teacher preparation, adaptive software and assistive technology tools, learning environments, and student engagement and motivation aid in understanding the intersection of mathematics and learning disabilities. Contributing to this understanding is the concept of learning styles, based on the premise that individuals have unique ways of processing information and approaching learning and that these differences are associated with their academic performance. The concept of “learning styles” is pervasive in both education-focused researcher and practitioner spaces and is popular in teacher training. Some goals of incorporating learning styles in mathematics education include providing students with personalized instruction that accounts for their specific way of learning, supporting the development of mathematics concepts and skills, and tailoring instruction to address the specific needs of students.

Broadly speaking, learning disabilities impact individuals’ ability to see, process, interpret, or respond to information. The specific difficulties that each student with a learning disability has can vary, including but not limited to, visual, sensory, or auditory processing disorders, dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia [1]. Given the diversity in the ways that students with learning disabilities need support, learning styles would seemingly be a useful way to meet the needs of students in a mathematics classroom through strategies like differentiated instruction.

Although the idea of learning styles is popular and embraced by many educators and practitioners, there is debate and controversy surrounding its validity and utility. Specifically, recent literature, beginning with Pashler et al.’s [2] 2009 review of research, has moved to “bust the myth” of learning styles. Despite identifying the lack of empirical studies validating learning styles [2], references to learning styles in the research literature, classroom practices, teacher training, and commercial products still exist. Olsen et al. [3] found that the number of published studies referencing learning styles has not diminished in refereed academic journals since Pashler et al. [2], suggesting that the idea of learning styles is still being proliferated to a large and broad audience. This is perhaps not surprising, given that “the idea that people learn things differently has tremendous intuitive appeal” [4] (p. 6). Informed by the previous literature, we explore the concept of learning styles at the intersection of mathematics education and learning disabilities.

2. Background

The belief in learning styles, from a cognitive perspective, is rooted in the idea that individuals have specific ways of processing information, and that learning is optimal when a specific learning style is implemented. This idea assumes that individuals have different cognitive styles, or ways of thinking and processing information, which can determine how they learn. An instrumental reference is the theory of multiple intelligences, developed by psychologist Howard Gardner [5]. According to Gardner, intelligence is not a single, unified ability, but rather a collection of multiple abilities or independent intelligences. Nine total types of intelligences, or “modalities”, have been named by Gardner [5,6,7]: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and existential intelligence. Gardner claims that everyone possesses these intelligences to some degree, but each individual has a unique profile of strengths and weaknesses across the different modalities, which can inform their learning style.

In contrast to the cognitive perspective on learning styles, there is also a constructivist perspective that views learning styles as dynamic and context dependent. Accordingly, learning styles emerge through interaction with the environment and are subject to change as the learner’s experiences and contexts change. Proponents of this perspective argue that instruction should be designed to facilitate learning in a variety of styles, rather than tailoring instruction to a particular learning style. They suggest that instruction should incorporate multiple modalities, encourage students to be active learners, and allow for the development of metacognitive skills to help students adapt to different learning situations. Both the cognitive and constructivist perspectives have implications for how instruction is designed and delivered. Therefore, the approach best suited for a particular student may depend on a variety of factors, such as their prior knowledge, motivation, and cultural background. In this paper, we will use the phrase learning styles to indicate the former perspective, that of a cognitive perspective, unless specifically noted.

In a 2004 review of the literature, Coffield et al. [8] identified 71 models of “learning styles”. Although the underlying perspectives of those 71 models varied, the message was the same, “individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them” [2] (p. 105). These models are used to help teachers understand the different ways students may process information and approach learning, and to provide guidance on how to modify instruction to meet the needs of different types of learners. Research in this area suggests that students learn most effectively when instructional methods are tailored to their preferred learning style. We note that one of the earliest and most widely recognized examples of this is the visual, auditory, reading/writing, and kinesthetic model, coined as the VARK model, which was developed by Fleming [9] and Fleming and Mills [10].

Regarding research on learning styles, Onwumere and Ossai-Ugbah [11] found that junior secondary school students (equivalent to eighth grade in the United States) who were categorized as “visual” or “active” learners tended to perform better on a standardized mathematics assessment than those who were categorized as “verbal” or “reflective” learners. Cano-García and Hughes [12] found that first-year engineering students who were categorized as “visual” or “kinesthetic” learners tended to have higher GPAs in mathematics than those who were categorized as “auditory” or “verbal” learners. Baki and Birgin [13] found that the relationship between learning styles and mathematics performance depended on the level of mathematical difficulty, with “field independent” learners performing better on more difficult mathematical tasks than “field dependent” learners. Specifically, field independent learners prefer to learn through structured and independent activities, have higher levels of cognitive flexibility, and are more analytical and objective in their thinking, while field dependent learners prefer to learn through group activities and discussion, have lower levels of cognitive flexibility, and are more subjective and empathetic in their thinking.

As previously mentioned, while the concept of learning styles has been widely popularized and embraced by many educators and practitioners, there is some debate and controversy surrounding its validity and utility. Some researchers argue that there is limited empirical evidence to support the notion of learning styles, and that the concept may oversimplify the complex process of learning. Some studies have found little to no evidence for the impact of learning styles on academic performance (e.g., Pashler et al. [2]). Husmann and O’Loughlin [14] questioned the VARK questionnaire, Kavale and LeFever [15] and Klitmøller [16] questioned a meta-analysis documenting the effectiveness of Dunn and Dunn’s Learning Style Model, and Koob and Funk [17] and Willcoxson and Prosser [18] disparaged Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Additional research questioning the effectiveness of learning styles has also been completed. Rogowsky et al. [19] investigated the effects of learning styles-based instruction on college students through two types of instructional methods and found no statistical significance between learning style preference and mode of instruction. Similarly, Pershan and Riley [20], Weale [21], and Wiliam [22] have all published articles demonstrating that learning styles is a ‘neuromyth,’ or a false belief about how the mind and brain operates, advocating that teachers should instead incorporate evidence-based practices in their instructional methods.

Even after Pashler et al. [2] criticized the lack of empirical studies validating learning styles and its application in education, references to learning styles in research literature, classroom practices, teacher training, and commercial products still exist. As previously mentioned, Olsen et al. [3] found the “busted myth” of learning styles to be a “zombie concept”. Tracing the perpetuation of learning styles references in empirical, peer-reviewed articles on K-12 education, they found continued support for the concept (in 96% of all cases) across 268 articles in 170 journals published from January 2009 through September 2019. Acceptance of concepts like learning styles as a taken-as-shared, commonly held idea is not unique to learning styles specifically nor uncommon in education, even in light of a lack of empirical evidence. Neither is the perpetuation or pervasiveness of such ideas, especially in the case of learning styles.

Study Rationale, Purpose, and Research Questions

The learning styles theory, or the idea that students learn best when using particular modalities, began to appear in the 1970s and has continued to be articulated and proliferated in both practitioner resources and research papers (see Olsen et al. [3]). The sheer volume of published works on learning styles has suggested this model may be a useful starting point for considering individual differences in students and may help teachers personalize instruction and support student learning. Although the validity of learning styles has been criticized as a concept, with some researchers arguing that it oversimplifies the complex process of learning and that there is a lack of empirical research that definitively supports many assertations in the learning styles model (see Pashler et al. [2]), learning styles has been used to address the intersection between mathematics and learning disabilities. According to the National Center for Learning Disabilities [23], students with learning disabilities often struggle with mathematics because of working memory, visual-spatial skills, and processing speed difficulties. Since the implementation of learning styles as an instructional model is often driven by the desire to provide individualized, differentiated, student-centered instruction that considers the unique needs and abilities of each student, understanding how learning styles have been used in the literature may help illuminate our understanding of the intersection of mathematics education and learning disabilities.

Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to explore the occurrences of the learning styles theory in all National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) journal articles with a learning disability co-occurrence. We bound our search to just the NCTM journals as both a metric of quality and a source of trustworthiness. NCTM has been the preeminent mathematics teacher organization in the United States. Authorship varies, with researchers in the field frequently disseminating both empirical findings through the NCTM research-based journals and their research implications for teaching and learning in the NCTM practitioner-based journals. With a wide readership, NCTM journals are a source that not only bridges research and practice, but also amplifies ideas in the field. We consider journals of the NCTM to be a proxy for the current taken-as-shared trends and understanding of the mathematics education field at any time. As we are generally interested in how learning styles contributed to the field through the NCTM publications that specifically relate to learning disabilities, two research questions guided this work:

(1)

What are the characteristics of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published articles in which “learning styles” and “learning disabilities” co-occur?

(2)

What are the perspectives on learning styles, co-occurring with learning disabilities mentions, given by the authors in National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published articles?

3. Methodology

This systematic review is part of a larger study of all references to the term “learning style” found in NCTM journals. Additional search term criteria were used for this study, as described below, to narrow the focus specifically for co-occurrences with “learning disabil*”. Below, we describe our procedure using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [24] protocol.

3.1. Eligibility Criteria and Information Sources

The Journal Storage (JSTOR) database was used to search all NCTM-published journals (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, Teaching Children Mathematics, The Arithmetic Teacher, and The Mathematics Teacher). The search strategy included the key words “learning style” and “learning disabil*” (to capture learning disability or disabilities) or “special education” (to capture general inclusion of learning disabilities ideas where the specific term was not used). This search was conducted in March of 2023 to capture all publications through the year 2022. At that time, 41 articles met our search criteria.

3.2. Selection Process

Each article was independently reviewed by two randomly assigned researchers for four descriptive characteristics criteria, keyword mentions and perspectives, and learning styles and learning disabilities overlap, each elaborated below. There were no discrepancies between the two researchers in all cases. The third, previously unassigned researcher reviewed data not previously assigned, and again, there were no discrepancies found. The final data corpus was reviewed by each researcher individually and the group collectively as an audit. Again, no discrepancies were found. No specific training was provided to the researchers who reviewed the articles as the researchers were looking for specific data that were either present or not present in the articles.

3.3. Items, Categorization, and Synthesis Methods

Data items collected were all objective measures, meaning there was a limited risk of bias. The following characteristics were determined for each article:

(1)

Journal name and year of publication (volume and issue number were also noted in the case of multiple printings of the same article in a single year);

(2)

Article type (i.e., general teaching advice, articulations of specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula, empirical research, book review, annotated bibliography, literature review, current issue discussion, and call for manuscripts);

(3)

Author name, and if given, job position (i.e., college professor or instructor, prekindergarten through 12th grade schoolteachers, non-profit education center positions, graduate/doctoral students, pre-service teachers, higher-education administrators, and the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics staff), and educational expertise related to mathematics education and/or learning styles and/or learning disabilities (including special education) and;

(4)

If given, article grade band focus (i.e., young children, elementary, middle grades, high school, community college, pre-service teachers), and specific mathematics content (i.e., algebra, geometry, number and operations).

Note that while grade band could sometimes be surmised when the author(s) did not specify, like for grade-band-specific journals (e.g., Teaching Children Mathematics is elementary-specific), we did not make any determinations that were not explicitly made by the authors. We also explored possible causes of heterogeneity among study results by checking that the data from the included articles were extracted correctly as suggested by Schroll et al. [25].

3.4. Learning Styles: Mentions and Perspectives

All instances of the term “learning style”, beyond the author’s biography, were determined for each article. Each instance was extracted as a quote, and where the mention was made (i.e., main article text, the reference list, and/or the author biography). These data for learning style mentions and the context of the article generally were used by the researchers to determine, if possible, the perspective the authors took on learning styles.

3.5. Learning Disabilities: Mentions and Perspectives

Like the process for finding all mentions of “learning style”, the researchers determined all mentions, including location in the article, for the terms “learning disabil*” and “special education”. By using the term “special education”, articles that discussed learning disabilities without using that specific term were included in the study (e.g., Tabor [26]). As was done for “learning styles”, each “learning disabil*” and “special education” mention, beyond the author’s biography, was determined for each article. Each instance was extracted as a quote, and where the mention was made (i.e., the main article text, the reference list, and/or the author biography) was noted. These data for learning disabilities (i.e., mentions and the general context of the article) were used by the researchers to determine, if possible, the perspective the authors took on learning disabilities.

3.6. Learning Styles and Learning Disability Connections

We determined the intersection of learning styles and learning disability ideas by using the learning styles and learning disability (and/or special education) mentions, which were previously described. We analyzed the mentions (what was said and where it appeared in the articles) to categorize the connection between concepts in each article in one of two ways: (1) non-existent or could not be determined, or (2) an explicit connection or connection that could be implied from the article.

An example of non-existent or could not be determined learning styles and learning disability connection is when both learning styles and learning disabilities (or special education) ideas are mentioned in the article, but they are not related to one another. Stix [27] says of learning styles in the main text of the article, “Come every fall, teachers of mathematics are confronted with over- sized classes filled with students who vary in both their learning style and their way of communicating what they have learned” (p. 264) and “At the same time, writing about mathematics offers a flexible assessment tool for teachers and parents to review and students’ thinking, reasoning, and learning styles” (p. 264), and “In practice, a multimodal approach to teaching gives students the opportunity discover mathematical truths on their own, in their own natural learning style. The difference can be seen by revisiting the lesson on pi, this time using a multimodal approach” (p. 265). No connection is made to learning disabilities (or special education), because the only mention in Stix [27] is in the references: “Baum, Susan. Gifted but Learning Disabled: A Puzzling Paradox. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1 990. ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 479 90”. While this article with was listed, there was no mention of it within the article itself.

On the other hand, there is a connection between learning styles and learning disabilities made by Sears [28], who said, “The purpose of this article is to assist these teachers to recognize problems in mathematics that are often demonstrated by students with suspected or diagnosed learning disabilities and to suggest remedial and compensatory techniques…” (p. 5). Many suggested techniques were aimed to help students develop an auditory learning style, saying “By internalizing audible speech the child has developed a learning style that directs his or her actions and maintains attention” [28] (p. 10). We notice that this is a constructivist perspective on learning styles.

3.7. Analyses

A two-prong analysis was completed. First, descriptive statistics of the article characteristics, including counts of keyword mentions were completed. This qualitative content analysis answers research question one: What are the characteristics of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published articles in which “learning styles” and “learning disabilities” co-occur? Second, qualitative data synthesis of coding related to learning styles and learning disabilities perspectives and connections were conducted to answer research question two: What are the perspectives on learning styles, co-occurring with learning disabilities mentions, given by the authors in National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published articles? We draw from both qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis traditions to synthesize our coding to answer our second research question.

4. Findings

4.1. Characteristics of NCTM-Published Articles in Which Learning Styles and Learning Disabilities Co-Occur: Journal Distribution and Article Publication Years

Recall, 41 articles met the search criteria, which captured all articles from NCTM publications through the end of year 2022. They were distributed as follows: six (~15%) in Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME), zero (0%) in Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12 (MTLT), six (~15%) in Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School (MTMS), nine (~22%) in Teaching Children Mathematics (TCM), fourteen (~34%) in The Arithmetic Teacher (TAT), and six (~15%) in The Mathematics Teacher (TMT). Articles first appeared in 1977 (one occurrence published in TAT) and as recent as 2022 (one occurrence published in JRME). Article counts are displayed by journal and publication year in

Table 1. Learning style and learning disability co-occurrences in articles in National Council of Teachers of Mathematics publications by year and journal.

Publication Year	NCTM Publication
	Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (n = 6)	Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12 (n = 0)	Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School (n = 6)	Teaching Children Mathematics (n = 9)	The Arithmetic Teacher (n = 14)	The Mathematics Teacher (n = 5)
1977–1979					1
1980–1981
1982–1983					1
1984–1985					1
1986–1987					2
1988–1989					6
1990–1991	1				1
1992–1993					1
1994–1995					1	1
1996–1997	1			2		1
1998–1999			1
2000–2001	1			1		1
2002–2003				2
2004–2005				1
2006–2007			1	1		1
2008–2009	1
2010–2011			4
2012–2013				2
2014–2015	1					2
2016–2017
2018–2019
2020–2021
2022	1

Note: cells blacked out denote years the journal was not in publication.

. Note that in 1989, five articles were found, yet four out of five of these occurrences were calls for manuscripts published in TAT.

4.2. Article Types, Content and Grade Foci

The article types ranged as follows: thirteen (~32%) articles that gave general teaching advice; nine (~22%) pieces that articulated specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula; eight (~20%) reports of empirical research; four (~10%) calls for manuscripts (which were all the same call, published four separate times); two (~5%) articles that discussed then-current issues; three (~7%) book reviews; one (~2%) annotated bibliography; and one (~2%) literature review. The distribution of article types by journal is shown in

Table 2. Distribution of articles by journal and article type.

Article Type	Journal
	Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (n = 6)	Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12 (n = 0)	Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School (n = 6)	Teaching Children Mathematics (n = 9)	The Arithmetic Teacher (n = 14)	The Mathematics Teacher (n = 5)
General Teaching Advice (n = 13)			3	6	2	2
Specific Classroom Activities, Courses, or Curricula (n = 9)				3	3	3
Reports of Empirical Research (n = 8)	6				1	1
Annotated Bibliography (n = 1)					1
Book Review (n = 3)			2		1
Literature Review (n = 1)			1
Call for Manuscripts (n = 4)					4
Discussion of Then-Current Issues (n = 2)					2

.

Although content and grade band, if specified by the authors (21 (~51%) cases for content and 12 (~29%) cases for grade band), varied, there were natural groupings of articles about early childhood and elementary grades (that is, prekindergarten through grade 5; n = 9 (~22%)). Four articles for each content strand (i.e., algebra (~10%), geometry (~10%), and number and operations (~10%)) were found. The distribution of articles by content and grade band determination is shown in

Table 3. Distribution of articles by content and grade band.

Grade Band	Content
	Algebra (n = 4)	Geometry (n = 4)	Number and Operations (n = 4)	Not Specified (n = 29)
Young Children (n = 5)	0	2	2	1
Elementary (n = 6)	0	0	0	4
Middle Grades (n = 4)	0	0	0	4
High School (n = 6)	2	1	0	3
Community College (n = 1)	1	0	0	0
Pre-Service Teachers (n = 1)	0	0	0	1
Not Specified (n = 20)	1	1	2	16

.

4.3. Authorship: Job Position and Expertise

Of the 41 articles, there were 71 total authors (M = 1.71, SD = 1.24, Range = 1 to 6 authors per article). Some individuals authored or co-authored multiple articles; thus, there were 65 unique authors. When analyzing individual authorship biographies, there were a variety of areas represented: college instructors or professors (n = 38, ~58%), prekindergarten through 12th grade schoolteachers (n = 11, ~17%), non-profit education center staff (n = 7, ~11%), graduate/doctoral students (n = 5, ~8%), pre-service teachers (n = 2, ~3%), higher-education administrators (n = 1, ~1.5%), and the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics staff (n = 1, ~1.5%). Like job position variance among the 65 unique authors, their education field expertise also varied. Of those article authors who had biographies that articulated expertise (n = 41, ~63%), such expertise included mathematics education (n = 20, ~49% of those with biographies), learning disabilities and/or special education (n = 4, ~10% of those with biographies), and a combination of mathematics education and learning disabilities/special education (n = 5, ~12% of those with biographies). The remaining 11 authors (~27% of those with biographies) gave expertise in other areas (e.g., clinical psychology, technology education, and early childhood generally), with only 1 author listing learning styles as their expertise.

4.4. Keyword Mentions

The keyword terms “learning styles” and “learning disabil*” (or “special education”) were found throughout the articles in varied locations, including the main article text, the reference list, and/or the author biography. Figure 1 shows these distributions. Nearly all learning styles mentions were found in the main text of the articles (39 (~95%) total cases); just three (~7%) articles that mentioned learning styles in the text had citations that also included the keyword. In the case of one article [29], the learning styles keyword was found in the author’s biography. “Learning disabil*” (and/or “Special Education”) keyword mentions were found in the text of 30 (~73%) articles, in the reference list of 18 (~44%) articles, and in 7 (~17%) author biographies. The intersections of these mentions (e.g., found in both the main text and author biography) are shown in the Venn diagram (Figure 1).

The intersection of keyword mentions, that is, where both learning styles and learning disabil* (or special education) appeared together in an article, is shown in

Table 4. Distribution of articles by keyword mention.

Learning Disability (and/or Special Education) Mention	Learning Styles Mention
	Text (n = 36)	References (n = 1)	Author Biography (n = 1)	Text and References (n = 3)
Text (n = 19)	18			1
References (n = 10)	7	1		2
Author Biography (n = 1)			1
Text and References (n = 5)	5
Text and Biography (n = 3)	3
Text, References, and Biography (n = 3)	3

. For example, in 18 (~44%) of the articles, both keywords of interest were found in just the main article text.

4.5. The Intersection of Learning Styles and Learning Disabilities

In 20 of our 41 cases (47.5%), the connection between learning styles and learning disability (and/or special education) was categorized as non-existent or could not be determined. This categorization, of non-existent connection, includes Thornton and Smith [29], whose mentions of learning styles and learning disabilities were only in the author biography of the article. We determined that the other 21 articles (52.5%) in our corpus implicitly or explicitly connected learning styles and learning disability (and/or special education) ideas, and these articles, distributed by year, journal, article type, content, and grade band, are shown in

Table 5. Articles with explicit or implicit learning styles and learning disabilities connections.

Author(s)	Year	Journal	Article Type	Content	Grade Band
Andreasen, J.B., & Hunt, J.H. [30]	2012	Teaching Children Mathematics	General teaching advice	Number and Operations	n/a
Bray, W.S. [31]	2005	Teaching Children Mathematics	General teaching advice	n/a	n/a
Feigenbaum, R. [32]	2000	The Mathematics Teacher	Specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula	Algebra	Community college
Fennell, R.(S.) [33]	1984	The Arithmetic Teacher	Discussion of then-current issues	n/a	n/a
Freer Weiss, D.M. [34]	2005/ 2006	Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School	Literature review	n/a	Middle grades
Hunt, J.H. [35]	2010	Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School	General teaching advice	Geometry	n/a
Hunt, J.H., & Andreasen, J.B. [36]	2011	Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School	General teaching advice	n/a	Middle grades
Kliman, M., & Richards, J. [37]	1992	The Arithmetic Teacher	Specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula	n/a	n/a
Meyers, M.J., & Burton, G.M. [38]	1989	The Arithmetic Teacher	General teaching advice	n/a	n/a
NCTM [39]	1998a	The Arithmetic Teacher	Call for manuscripts	n/a	n/a
NCTM [40]	1998b	The Arithmetic Teacher	Call for manuscripts	n/a	n/a
NCTM [41]	1998c	The Arithmetic Teacher	Call for manuscripts	n/a	n/a
NCTM [42]	1998d	The Arithmetic Teacher	Call for manuscripts	n/a	n/a
Partridge, E., Austin, S., Wadlington, E., & Bitner, J. [43]	1996	Teaching Children Mathematics	Specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula	Geometry	Young children
Sáraco, M.R. [44]	2010	Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School	Book review	n/a	High school
Scheer, J.K., & Henniger, M.T. [45]	1982	The Arithmetic Teacher	Specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula	n/a	n/a
Sears, C.J. [28]	1986	The Arithmetic Teacher	General teaching advice	n/a	n/a
Selmer, S.J., & Floyd, K. [46]	2012	Teaching Children Mathematics	Specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula	Geometry	Young children
Suh, J.M. [47]	2007	Teaching Children Mathematics	General teaching advice	n/a	Elementary
Tabor, C. [26]	2014	The Mathematics Teacher	Specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula	Algebra	High school
Vance, J.H. [48]	1986	The Arithmetic Teacher	Annotated bibliography	n/a	n/a

.

These articles appeared between 1982 and 2014, in TCM, TMT, TAT, and MTMS journals, though overwhelmingly in TAT (n = 10, ~24%). Four of the twenty-one articles were repetitive of each other, a series of calls for manuscripts made by the NCTM (note: unlike the other articles included in this data set, the call for manuscripts put out by NCTM satisfied the criteria outlined in the methodology section) [39,40,41,42], but otherwise, most were general teaching advice (n = 7, ~17%) or specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula-type articles (n = 6, ~15%). A spread across grade bands was found (one (~2%) in each community college and elementary bands and two (~5%) in each young children, middle school, and high school bands), and four articles (~19%) were specific to content (one (~2%) number and operations, two (~5%) algebra, and three (~7%) geometry).

4.6. Perspectives on Learning Styles

Our qualitative synthesis of articles in our corpus that implicitly or explicitly connected learning styles and learning disability revealed several trends in the ways that these topics were being connected by authors. The most prominent framing of this connection was that learning styles is a beneficial way to meet the diverse needs of students in the classroom, which includes students with learning disabilities and/or students receiving special education services. Andreasen and Hunt [30] stated, “With the diversity of student populations rising with respect to disability status, language needs, ethnicities, and learning styles, educators are increasingly challenged to deliver quality mathematics instruction that all students benefit from every day” (p. 240).

Similarly, in their presentation of a mathematics lesson incorporating cooking into the kindergarten classroom, Partridge et al. [43] suggested that a hands-on activity is beneficial for students as “it presents an alternative to paper-and-pencil tasks that are often overwhelming to young children, particularly those with learning disabilities or different learning styles” (p. 493). Such papers suggest that all students benefit from mathematics instruction that caters to their individual learning style, including, or especially considering, students with learning disabilities. There is also evidence to suggest that educators who work with younger children perhaps implement learning styles from a more essentialism perspective, meaning that how students learn (i.e., learning styles) may be biologically based [49].

Along the same vein, authors also discussed how students with learning disabilities particularly benefit from the use of manipulatives and hands-on learning in the mathematics classroom. For example, in building an argument for incorporating manipulatives into the middle school mathematics classroom, Freer Weiss [34] highlights a study demonstrating that concrete algebraic instruction is effective for students with learning disabilities [50]. They say such to support their claim that “manipulatives have commonly been used for students with learning disabilities and for students needing remediation”, thus concluding, “if this method is effective for students with learning disabilities, why would it not be effective for other students?” [34] (p. 240). Immediately following this claim, Freer Weiss [34] provides further evidence in support of manipulatives in middle school algebra by presenting research claiming that matching instruction to students’ learning styles reduces their mathematics anxiety [51]. In combination, Freer Weiss [34] implies that students have learning styles and that students with learning disabilities are kinesthetic, or hands-on, learners that benefit from the use of manipulatives to learn algebraic concepts.

In a The Mathematics Teacher article addressing mainstreaming special education students in the mathematics classroom, Fennell [33] took this connection a bit further while writing to inform teachers about the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act. While detailing various situations in which mainstreaming students may be considered, Fennell specifically links the mainstreaming that students with learning disabilities require teachers to match to their learning style. “A student who has had a special class placement in an educable mentally retarded, learning disabled, or emotionally disturbed class may, of course, have a learning style somewhat different from that of many “regular” students” [33] (p. 25). Fennell [33] later details what is meant by defining the term learning modality:

The sensory pathway to optimum learning. Whether the IEP suggests emphasis on learning through hearing, seeing, or touching and moving, is not be viewed as reflecting a learning deficit, but rather, expressing a learning style that the classroom has a responsibility to meet.

(p. 25)

It is noteworthy that Fennell’s article is the earliest of the 21, published in 1984, and is the only article in the data set to explicitly claim that students with learning disabilities have unique learning styles that differ from their peers (though others, like Sears [28], imply such a connection). However, none of the remaining 20 articles spoke directly counter to the narrative that students with learning disabilities have unique learning styles that must be honored within the mathematics classroom for them to succeed.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Article Characteristics

Articles from the NCTM publications that met our criteria began appearing in 1977, and no more than two unique articles were published in any given year, looking across all journals in publication at any time. Though, while just 41 articles met our criteria, limiting the search to include learning disabilities or special education and learning styles produced a subset of all learning styles-mentions in the NCTM publications. In the last ten years, just five mentions of learning styles and learning disabilities (or special education) appeared in the NCTM publications: three in The Mathematics Teacher (before it ceased publication in 2020) and two in Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. The most recent JRME publication [52] couches learning styles in skepticism, perhaps a turning point in the prevalence of learning styles concepts in the NCTM publications. While the majority of the 41 articles in the corpus were specifically aimed at practitioners (n = 25 (~61%), general teaching advice, specific classroom activities, course, or curricula, and book review articles), none were found in the newest journal, Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12. This may indicate more acceptance of the learning styles concept generally in practitioner publications, which were written by people with a variety of positions, though few appear since 2020, perhaps another indication of waning support for the concept in the NCTM publications.

In more than half of the cases, the authors of our 41 articles were college instructors or professors. While their expertise was usually mathematics education or learning disabilities and/or special education, only one author noted learning styles as an expertise. Limitations exist since biographies are not included for all 65 of the authors in the corpus. The biographies given and job positions of the authors are not evidence of non-expertise, but evidence of the acceptance and pervasiveness of things. Our keywords were found in the main article text, the reference list, and/or the author biography; learning styles was found in the main text for 39 articles, and in the other two cases, in just the reference list or the author biography. In this latter case, this article did not discuss learning disabilities nor learning styles within the article at all, though it was the expertise of the authors [29].

5.2. Article Perspectives

Articles from the NCTM publications that met our study inclusion criteria had varied author meanings and perspectives on the idea of learning styles (e.g., VARK-type references). We surmise that these variations are due to both the varied perspectives on learning styles in the field generally (i.e., cognitive and constructivist perspectives) and the relationship, if any, to other concerns of the article. For example, a common perspective was relating learning styles to a dimension of diversity among students, both an individuating characteristic and a group characteristic ([35,38,53]). We found only 21 articles in the NCTM publications with an explicit or implicit connection intended between learning styles and learning disability ideas. Unsurprisingly though, the connections made, like discussing how students with learning disabilities particularly benefit from the use of manipulatives and hands-on learning in the mathematics classroom (e.g., Freer Weiss [34]), were situated in the practitioner NCTM publications and were mostly general teaching advice or specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula-type articles (across grade bands and content). There is a noticeable lack of research-based articles from the NCTM at this learning styles and learning disability intersection. This is not surprising: Pashler et al. [2] have noted the lack of research-based evidence for learning styles particularly.

Recall, 4 of the 21 articles categorized to have an implicit or explicit connection between learning styles and learning disabilities were a repeated call for manuscripts [39,40,41,42]. The call, entitled “Call for Manuscripts: Focus Issue on Reaching all Students”, was for a 1991 special issue of The Arithmetic Teacher. One way to address the call was to focus on “special groups”, of which NCTM [39,40,41,42] said:

Who is at risk or underrepresented in mathematics education (the learning disabled, those with limited English proficiency, the gifted, inner-city students, slow learners, and so on)? What are the characteristics of these students and how can they be identified? How can observations of such factors as spatial sense or learning style assist in identifying at-risk students or help in diagnosing areas of strength and weakness? How can an understanding of such factors be used to reach the students?

No articles in our study were published in this special issue nor in the year 1991; we believe this call for manuscripts did not prompt or motivate additional publication of articles that would have met our search criteria.

We know that the meanings authors have for learning styles vary. We know of the cognitive and constructivist perspectives on learning styles and the variations in models and perspectives within each of the cognitive learning styles and constructivist learning style camps. Recall, where specifically in an article the phrase “learning styles” was mentioned varied. Because of this, and the level of context or detail given around the authors’ use of the phrase “learning styles”, not all intended meanings are clear or can be implied with any certainty. From what we can determine, a few clear commonalities in the explicit or implicit meaning of (or reason to mention) learning styles by authors are found: students have a (perhaps preferred) learning style; therefore, instruction should match. Preferences for or “innateness” of learning styles may be related to learning disability or cultural characteristics, which make students unique from one another and classrooms diverse.

VARK-type references were common. For instance, Tabor [26] said, “there is a place in mathematics classrooms for activities and lessons that have a curricular basis and that emphasize the kinesthetic and visual learning styles” (p. 626), indicating a cognitive perspective on learning styles and advocating for instruction to match. Tabor wrote, “…all learners can benefit from diversification and expansion of learning domains in the classroom… [for example] integrate technology with some of the less frequently addressed learning styles”, [26], (p. 626), which seems to indicate a marriage of both cognitive perspectives and constructive perspectives. Tabor’s [26] description of a calculator-based slope and linear equation activity for engaging kinesthetic learners had similarities with Foshay and Wells’ [54] article. They said, “the instructional method of using Ping-Pong to teach the coordinate plane may benefit students with kinesthetic and visual learning styles because it may appeal to their cognitive strengths” [54] (p. 714). Wolf et al. [55], who also integrated technology like Tabor [26], argued that “Lessons using the [interactive] whiteboard can reach students who exhibit all learning styles, but lessons seem particularly effective for those who learn best using visualization and spatial reasoning” (p. 558). Further, Wolf et al. [55] and Foshay and Wells [54] cited Gardner’s [5] multiple intelligences as a basis for learning styles.

Freer Weiss [34] reported a study of the use of manipulatives in middle grades instruction, finding an effective teacher “portrait”. “This portrait is of a successful teacher using various teaching modes to appeal to students’ diverse learning styles” (p. 240). An example is found in Meyers and Burton [38], who said, “Classroom teachers can assist students with visual-processing disorders by carefully designing instructional strategies that use preferred learning styles and allowing individualized compensation strategies” (p. 48). The message that instruction should meet learning styles from a cognitive perspective (e.g., Freer Weiss [34] and Meyers [38]) also rang true from a more constructive perspective. For example, Walmsley and Hickman [56] said, “A more active and contextual environment would match the learning styles of more students and incorporate different aspects in the learning process to help increase student understanding” (p. 615). When discussing mathematically rich, investigative tasks, Day [57] said, “They address student diversity by being accessible to all, catering to a variety of learning styles and allowing for exploration while providing challenges along the way”.

Hallmark active learning ideas, like working in groups, were cited in the data corpus. Dobbs et al. [58] said of the “Math is Everywhere” preschool mathematics curriculum, “Perhaps some aspect of the intervention and its activities, such as its hands-on and cooperative nature, better matched certain children’s learning styles” (p. 21). Hunt [35] and Hunt and Andreasen [36] advocated for opportunities for instruction when grouping students by learning style. Additional teaching suggestions advocated for varying methods and tasks (e.g., Short [59]) and allowing multiple representations or ways of showing thinking (e.g., Suh [47]), especially those that are multimodal (e.g., Stix [27]) and less traditional (e.g., alternatives to paper and pencil, [43]). Besides these teaching strategies considering learning styles to increase engagement and “allay monotony” [59] (p. 198), Stuart [60] listed accommodating different learning styles to reduce mathematics anxiety. Further, Becker [53] discussed learning styles, though differently than other authors previously discussed, offering a range of “ways of knowing” specific to women, saying “traditional ways of teaching mathematics—stressing certainty, a single correct answers, deduction, logic, argumentation, algorithms, structure, and formality—may be particularly incompatible with the ways in which many females learn…a different learning style…may help explain why females avoid mathematics and related careers” (p. 470).

Like Becker [53], other authors related learning styles to a dimension of diversity among students, both an individuating characteristic and a group characteristic. This was especially the case for authors discussing special education and students with learning disabilities (e.g., Hunt [35] and Meyers [38]), which we further unpack in the following section. Rowser and Koontz [61] published “Inclusion of African American Students in the Mathematics Classroom: Issues of Style, Curriculum, and Expectations”, in which they explained the previous learning styles thought reconsidered as “cultural learning styles”. They said that “the relational style of cognition may address more effectively the cultural style of many African American students…People who prefer a relational style respond better if the organization and systematic arrangement of the whole is given” (p. 449).

Brantlinger [52] gives a perspective unlike most other authors in the corpus, which disagrees with Rowser and Koontz [61] and with Tabor’s [26] citation of studies claiming “low socioeconomic status students are also nontraditional learners and that incompatibility of learning styles can lead directly to poor academic success and a higher dropout rate” (see Tabor [26], p. 624, citing Caldwell and Ginthier [62]) and “a high proportion of the study population [of high-poverty unban middle schoolers] were kinesthetic learners” (see Tabor [26], p. 624, citing Olivares-Cuhat [63]).

Ultimately, we must acknowledge that distinctive designs for distinctive student populations may be based more on stereotypes and faulty assumptions than on real variations among the needs and learning styles of students from different backgrounds (Brantlinger et al. [64]; Oakes [65]). Despite what the [critical mathematics] and [vocational mathematics] literatures suggest, Black, Latinx, or working-class people do not clearly have a particular affinity for contextual, concrete, or practical mathematics or, for that matter, vocational or social justice mathematics [52].

(p. 169)

McCaffrey et al. [66] also presented skepticism of learning styles, though couched differently, saying “This last finding is intriguing because many advocates of integrated math and other reform-based curricula argue that these types of courses may help to reduce the persistent achievement gaps between wealthy students and their impoverished counterparts, particularly if the reform courses engage students more and accommodate multiple learning styles” (p. 513).

5.3. Limitations and Considerations

Our work is limited by our use of keywords. That is, we may not have captured all articles with learning styles and learning disability mentions if the exact term learning style was not used anywhere in the article. Relatedly, while we used “special education” as a proxy for learning disability, since we know that there have been language variations in the literature, other language uses were not included. We may guess that some learning disabilities were specifically named in an article but that “learning disability” or “special education” terms were not. In that case, that article would not have been included in our review.

Our choice to bound our search to the NCTM publications was intentional, as we have previously described, but is a limitation to the generalizability of our findings and presents specific considerations. That is, our findings are not generalizable to the intersection of learning styles and learning disabilities across all literature, as we examined that intersection within the NCTM publications only. In addition, we acknowledge that there are important considerations, given that most of our articles were found in the practitioner specific-NCTM publications, like space limitations for the authors. As authors ourselves of practitioner articles published by the NCTM, we know the pragmatics of preparing a manuscript. This includes the challenge of limited space, which often means limiting the number of references given to maximize space for main article text. References specific to learning styles mentions in an article could further clarify the perspective the authors intended. It is important to connect practitioner pieces to the teaching and learning field, thus contextualizing the work for teachers and teacher educators to take-up. This is especially true for general teaching advice or specific classroom activities, courses, or curricula pieces. In the process of contextualizing, we have found it not uncommon to reference complex topics (e.g., constructivism or inquiry, multiple intelligences) with little further explanation. We say this not as a criticism but as a consideration when consuming this study and the articles in the review.