After reading the article and the comments, it sure seems the subject (the "learning styles" hypothesis) arouses considerable passion in supporters and detracto

After reading the article and the comments, it sure seems the subject (the "learning styles" hypothesis) arouses considerable passion in supporters and detractors. But polarization may be inevitable when the subject is at best indistinctly defined. Academic learning would surely be associated with high level and complex neuronal circuitry, which would not seem to be easily parsed into a few categorical formulations. Saying someone is a "visual learner" is very likely a vast oversimplification. Thorough neuropsychological evaluation can reveal dozens of specific cognitive abilities and show areas of strength and weakness. Normally the "peaks and valleys" of abilities have modest difference, but there are individuals with great variation: for example, genius level (IQ 180) in some areas, while adjacent skills are just average (IQ 105). Such "unevenness" can produce major difficulty with task performance in school and jobs, as markedly inconsistent abilities can hinder learning or productivity in ways hard to understand and rectify. "Learning style" may be controversial because it is a hard to study, and assessing individuals is too complicated and expensive. The pragmatic approach of using a variety of methods to teach a class of 30 kids is quite sensible. A good teacher knows some students catch on better with one approach vs. another, but in any case, for the students who can learn from any approach the repetition would probably do no harm.