My opinion - is that any theory or model should be understood within a wider context that includes comparisons and contrasts with other theories as well as the development history of the theory (where it came from and why). No model is big enough to encompass everything that is relevant. About Howard Gardiner; when discussions of intelligence were viewed as pretty much the same as what you measure with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children then Garderner's theory of multiple intelligences were a welcomed expansion of what could constitute cognitive skills. By themselves, Gardiner's ideas are very limited, but I would suggest they should be view as they relate to those of Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, and others; and how it relates to the historic progression of behavioralism, cognitivism, and constructionism. My take on learning styles is not to try to map instruction to a measured style, but just to understand that people think differently. Since everyone does not think in the same way; it is a good idea to present material in different ways and learning styles can clue you into some of those different ways. In terms of "learning theory" that currently interests me these days, it is the difference between "knowing" and "doing". I'm seeing "doing" as a complex combination of knowledge, skill, context (including social contexts), attitude and how you and the others around you are oriented to action. Knowing is necessary but insufficient. My understanding theoretically draws from Vygotsky and Activity Theory, but I think we need to go beyond them, maybe by drawing on Connectivism.