The author isn't defending debunked "learning styles", which were popular in the 90s and 00s.
"Learning styles" usually refers to one of a handful of specific ways of dividing up people. E.g., as preferring visual, aural, reading/writing, or kinesthetic learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles#Neil_Fleming's...
The body of the article acknowledges that those "learning styles" have been debunked:
> Briefly: the theory was that some people were inherently visual learners, while others were textual learners, among other kinds. This has been proven untrue.
The author is defending this idea instead:
> I’m talking about learners finding paths that work for them.
Fair enough, but recycling "learning styles" in the title is knowingly and needlessly confusing.
"Learning styles" usually refers to one of a handful of specific ways of dividing up people. E.g., as preferring visual, aural, reading/writing, or kinesthetic learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles#Neil_Fleming's...
The body of the article acknowledges that those "learning styles" have been debunked:
> Briefly: the theory was that some people were inherently visual learners, while others were textual learners, among other kinds. This has been proven untrue.
The author is defending this idea instead:
> I’m talking about learners finding paths that work for them.
Fair enough, but recycling "learning styles" in the title is knowingly and needlessly confusing.