Beep beep. Back the truck up.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool constructivist and I think the theory of "Learning Styles" as it's used today is rubbish. It's a mistake to think they're attached at the hip.
By "the theory of Learning Styles", I specifically mean the idea that some people are "auditory learners", "visual learners", "kinesthetic learners", etc. and that part of a teacher's job is to figure out which "learning style" best fits a given student and present them material in a manner consistent with that style.
I'll add that in the "literature" these things are called "learning modalities" and "learning style" refers to something else, but I've never heard someone use "learning style" and not mean learning modality.
It's also ironic that you use the phrase "constructivist ideals."
Constructivism has deep roots in the American philosophical tradition of Pragmatism[1]. C.S. Peirce coined the term "pragmatism" to contrast _specifically_ with the Kant's transcendental idealism. One of it's core epistemological tenets is that the only thing we can be sure of is that certainty is impossible.
In _The Quest for Certainty_[2], JohnDewey himself called out the "fallacy" of philosophers in taking abstract categories (e.g., "Visual Learners") for granted and not seeing them as conceptual tools invented to solve specific problems in a specific context.
Like you, I find it frustrating that many educational thinkers take these concepts for granted and deploy them in a classroom environment as if it would be absurd to ever do anything else. However, if you read any early Pragmatist thinkers like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., C.S. Peirce, William James, or John Dewey, it's clear that rejection of this maneuver is one of the central themes in everything they write.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
[2]: https://archive.org/details/questforcertaint032529mbp