This article discussed a meta analysis (looking at several studies) and it discovered that many studies on learning styles were flawed. In what ways does it suggest that learning styles studies were flawed?
Pashler et al. illustrated basic concepts by which the authors claimed most learning style studies were flawed: overzealous interpretations of results.
Firstly, let's take a look at what is being studied: the learning style hypothesis is that certain individuals are more attuned towards learning based on certain stimuli. For example, those who are visual learners tend to learn something better (measurable by retention, rate of proficiency) if a style of learning that focuses on visual stimulation is applied.
This is, ultimately a difficult hypothesis to test, and Pashler et al. illustrated the many ways that many studies have gone about doing this. Please refer to the study Learning Styles - Concepts and Evidence by Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork to use as an example for the explanations. In figure 1, the authors illustrate using 1D-I, unacceptable forms of evidence that a number of studies have used to "prove" ...
The following posting helps with a problem that discusses different learning styles.