Sadly, he is right about there being no concrete evidence supporting learning styles. I have been following this for quite some time, both my Egorg products and (soon to be) Study Swami are based on the idea that students differ in how they learn.

The interesting thing, though, is that any teacher with a decent amount of experience (I taught physics for 15 years, both as a TA and as a community college professor) sees that students do seem to learn differently. Some students need a clear, verbatim explanation of something. Others need to dance around the concept first, getting a feel for it, before they able to even parse such an explanation.

I'm not sure what it is linked to. I suspect that our 'bins' of learning styles are too narrow, or somehow else incorrect. The obvious ones came first, more-or-less 5 senses with each sense being aligned with a 'style' (I learn math better by smell...</s>). The students in the studies are categorized into different learning styles (usually) based on a survey (which, I would argue, really amounts to learning preferences rather than styles). It would be interesting to see tests of actual learning done with different presentations for forming the baseline assignments to a particular style.

But even then the problem is that the bins are pre-decided (verbal or visual? global or sequential?) I think this is a little too simplistic.

So while I suspect that there is actually something to the idea of learning differently (rather than just 'g'), for the moment, anyway, learning styles seem to be bullshit.