[coldtea]

>The body of the article acknowledges that those "learning styles" have been debunked

I'd say some dubious quality research (like most educational / psychology research is) was done to favour learning styles.

Then some newer, still dubious quality, research was done to "debunk" them.

Meanwhile, we probably don't know more about what objectively works in learning than we did before both sets of research were reported.

It's more about churning papers and taking sides in different academic camps, than actual scientific work.

Like with "Thinking, Fast and Slow" I wouldn't bet on either the original research or the debunking, having "settled" the issue.

[SamBam]

It's extremely difficult to prove anything in education research, just like any kind of sociology or psychology research.

Humans aren't like bowling balls dropped from towers, they're very non-deterministic, and the number of background factors that every individual has makes it very difficult to make federal statements.

Source: current ed research master's student.

[smogcutter]

It’s not even about churning papers in Ed research.

The grand prize is any kind of gimmick that can be turned into staff development material and a lucrative publishing/consulting career.

[sandspar]

See Angela Duckworth's "Grit"-based cottage industry ("A 2013 MacArthur Fellow, Angela has advised the World Bank, NBA and NFL teams, and Fortune 500 CEOs.") The grandmaster of the form is Yuval Noah Harari, who, among other things, has parlayed his pop histories into children's books and graphic novels.