Learning styles are fake news

Wow! I never expected to see such a great article. Perhaps we can start to move beyond a system that seems to contend that anyone can be good at anything. There is something called aptitude that plays its part as well as motivation and application. Letting students think that the world will adapt itself to them does them no favours in the long run.

Yes, a good read & several compelling messages. I'm all for systematic reviews. But I reckon the headline is misleading -- because it presupposes or infers there is 'one theory' to be debunked. The sub-heading follow-on clarifies things better, particularly through the phrase 'regardless of topic'. All the same, there's been no shortage of 'learning styles' debunkers over the last decade (e.g., Kirschner, Newton, & Seaman). The mythbusters! The problem is, they invariably conflate the various pop psychology applications of the construct with the way Kolb articulated it as a component of his theory on experiential learning. As a construct, it can be useful terminology depending on the context -- just like "learning preferences" is a useful construct & well-defined in the W3C Web Content Accessibility Standards. But while the W3C definition might not be useful in other contexts this doesn't make it false. Moreover, Kolb's theory spoke in terms of individual preferences toward one of four modes: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation. But YES, "A hierarchy of research syntheses of increasing generality, supported by research funders and overseen by scholarly societies, would promulgate the broad scholarly consensus with more authority than separate, unendorsed studies." There are countless learning theories, indeed countless theories of the world. Theories are always contested.

Thanx jm Indeed, there are several rather different characterisations of learning styles. Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone (2004: 1) reviewed 71 learning styles and described 13 in detail. They found them to differ importantly on internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and predictive validity. I add that they differ markedly in explanatory power and pedagogic feasibility. Coffield, Frank, Moseley, David, Hall, Elaine and Ecclestone, Kathryn (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, Learning and Skills Development Agency. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072804/http://sxills.nl/lerenlerennu/bronnen/Learning%20styles%20by%20Coffield%20e.a..pdf