I ran into an article on the New York Times website (in the "Views" section, but still...), entitled "Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits" [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/health/views/07mind.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1]; it addressed many of the issues we've seen so far in these modules, including the effectiveness of changing the settings in which teaching/learning take place, as well as the importance of testing. Even more intriguing to me, however, was one of the studies cited in this article: originally published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest in December 2008, this review of previously published studies calls into question the existence of the learning styles of which we've heard so much. The abstract of the study: http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.abstract The problem: finding scientific evidence for these different learning styles, as established through experiment. The conclusion: "Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis. We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all. Further research on the use of learning-styles assessment in instruction may in some cases be warranted, but such research needs to be performed appropriately." [Pashler, Harold, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork. "Learning Style: Concepts and Evidence." Psychological Science in the Public Interest 09.03 (December 2008): 105-119. Print.] Intriguing, no? If the evidence for these multiple learning styles is merely anectdotal, that does not necessarily mean that these learning styles do not exist? It does take a considerable leap of faith, however, to be structuring our courses based on them. As the study says, more rigorously scientific, experimental study is warranted. There is the possibility, however, that such studies would prove that these multiple learning styles, as we call them, are the outward expression of some other, as yet unknown phenomenon. Thoughts?