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.<p>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 <i>do</i> 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.<p>I&#x27;m not sure what it is linked to.  I suspect that our &#x27;bins&#x27; 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 &#x27;style&#x27; (I learn math better by smell...&lt;&#x2F;s&gt;).  The students in the studies are categorized into different learning styles (usually) based on a survey (which, I would argue, really amounts to learning <i>preferences</i> 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.<p>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.<p>So while I suspect that there is actually something to the idea of learning differently (rather than just &#x27;g&#x27;), for the moment, anyway, learning styles seem to be bullshit.