Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The usual definition is explaining things in different ways. By that definition, what you say is true, but I haven’t heard anyone keep the definition that narrow for decades. Other styles for example, can include things like not changing subjects every hour, but rather continuing until the student is ready to change.
> By that definition, what you say is true, but I haven’t heard anyone keep the definition that narrow for decades. So the issue is that whenever anyone has come up with intervention based on "teaching styles", it has always failed. That is what I mean by "it's not a thing". Here's the APA, in the article "Belief in Learning Styles Myth May Be Detrimental". https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/05/learning-sty…
That’s situating the problem in the wrong place. Everyone lacks self control, or has trouble keeping attention depending on the circumstances.
I agree with you that our schools are crap. I also agree that not all kids can be taught everything to the same level.
However that is orthogonal to the notion that kids can be taught to their potential if you allow them to be taught in an appropriate manner.
That ‘teaching styles’ link is accurate, but it deals with a straw man that results from not being willing to question the constraints of school.