Editing Learning styles (section)

=== Subsequent critiques ===
A 2013 study pointed out that Kolb's Learning Style Inventory, among its other weaknesses, incorrectly dichotomizes individuals on the abstract/concrete and reflective/action dimensions of experiential learning (in much the same way as the [[Myers-Briggs Type Indicator]] does in a different context), and proposed instead that these dimensions be treated as continuous rather than dichotomous/[[binary data|binary variables]].<ref name="Manolis" />{{rp|44}}

In an article that addressed Kolb's work through 2005, Mark K. Smith reviewed some critiques of Kolb's model, and identified six key issues regarding the model:<ref name="Smith">{{cite web |last=Smith |first=Mark K. |date=2010 |title=David A. Kolb on experiential learning |url=https://infed.org/david-a-kolb-on-experiential-learning/ |access-date=9 August 2015 |website=infed.org}}</ref>
# The model doesn't adequately address the process of reflection;
# The claims it makes about the four learning styles are extravagant;
# It doesn't sufficiently address the fact of different cultural conditions and experiences;
# The idea of stages/steps doesn't necessarily match reality;
# It has only weak empirical evidence;
# The relationship between learning processes and knowledge is more complex than Kolb draws it.
A 2015 review paper<ref name="Cuevas2015">{{cite journal |last=Cuevas |first=Joshua |date=November 2015 |title=Is learning styles-based instruction effective?: a comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles |journal=[[Theory and Research in Education]] |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=308–333 |doi=10.1177/1477878515606621|s2cid=146462452 }}</ref> examined the studies of learning styles completed after the 2009 APS critique,<ref name="Pashler"/> giving particular attention to studies that used the experimental methods advocated for by Pashler et al.<ref name="Cuevas2015"/> The findings were similar to those of the APS critique: the evidence for learning styles was virtually nonexistent while evidence contradicting it was both more prevalent and used more sound methodology.<ref name="Cuevas2015"/> Follow-up studies concluded that learning styles had no effect on student retention of material whereas another explanation, dual coding, had a substantial impact on it and held more potential for practical application in the classroom.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cuevas |first1=Joshua |last2=Dawson |first2=Bryan L. |date=March 2018 |title=A test of two alternative cognitive processing models: learning styles and dual coding |journal=[[Theory and Research in Education]] |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=40–64 |doi=10.1177/1477878517731450 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

A 2017 research paper from the UK found that 90% of academics agreed there are "basic conceptual flaws" with learning styles theory, yet 58% agreed that students "learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style", and 33% reported that they used learning styles as a method in the past year.<ref name=Frontiers2017/> It concluded that it might be better to use methods that are "demonstrably effective".<ref name=Frontiers2017>{{cite journal |last1=Newton |first1=Philip M. |last2=Miah |first2=Mahallad |date=2017 |title=Evidence-based higher education—is the learning styles 'myth' important? |journal=[[Frontiers in Psychology]] |volume=8 |pages=444 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444 |pmid=28396647 |pmc=5366351|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nancekivell |first1=Shaylene E. |last2=Shah |first2=Priti |last3=Gelman |first3=Susan A. |date=2020 |title=Maybe they're born with it, or maybe it's experience: toward a deeper understanding of the learning style myth |journal=[[Journal of Educational Psychology]] |volume=112 |issue=2 |pages=221–235 |doi=10.1037/edu0000366 |s2cid=191740592 |url=https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/edu-edu0000366.pdf}}</ref>