Have learning styles been disproven?

Numerous articles have been posted online about how learning styles have been disproven. They point to studies that show how students who study based off of their learning styles do not perform any better at testing. In some cases, they perform worse.


Even though I am openly critical of the legitimacy of sight and sound as learning styles, I have issues with these studies. I have even bigger issues with the bizarre conclusion being embraced by those who accept the results.

I have already written about some of the reasons that I never accepted sight and sound as valid learning styles. I don't want to spend too much time repeating myself. I will say that the use of testing as a measure tends to focus more on short-term memory than practical learning, and sight and sound are too shallow to represent the entirety of how someone learns.

Many teachers insist that the evidence against learning through sight and sound has completed disproven the concept of learning styles. Does anyone honestly believe that how everybody learns is identical to everybody else? If there is any variability whatsoever, there must be at least some legitimacy to learning styles. Unfortunately, I don't think I can prove that they are as substantial as I believe.

This has been one of my biggest complaints regarding these studies. Because nonsensical learning styles have been disproven, we believe that any kind of learning style has been disproven. This is absolutely not true. It has always been a bad idea to define the entirety of a child's learning needs with a single word that does not reflect practical learning. That is no excuse to show hostility towards the simple concept that what works best for one child may not necessarily be what works best for a different child. Let me put this another way. Just because a flawed concept for learning styles that I have openly opposed has been disproven, that doesn't disprove my beliefs regarding learning styles.