"Education has taken place pretty much the same way for at least 5,000 years."---Eddie

 What you wrote to Julia is entirely false.  In the last 100 years there have been staggering innovations.

Starting with Telegraph,  the technology for Education has progressed  through the Light Bulb,

 Movies and Films,  and Wireless Radio   Exponential advancements in  speaks and  headphones and microphones,  to   Digital Video and Digital Audio  Technologies,  and the additional developments of Computers and Keyboards to replace  the  Typewriter.

 FAX machines,  and  personal body  cameras, to Laser Pointers  to  Satellite Communications.

CD's for audio  devices  and DVD's for  audio visual study, are all innovations.

   The Internet today  permits  speakers of  a  language to teach  a student of the language on the other side of the world by direct phone call with Video Camera.   Most of that was never available even 75 years ago.   Your understanding of Education in the modern world is entirely askew.

.

   The Wired article cites a  diagram of something written by  "Sacha Chua"; but the magazine article fails to show that   Sacha Chua has not had success in language study.  The article informs readers as follows: 

"Learning Styles – a hugely popular idea that simply isn’t supported by psychological science."-----http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-two-minutes/

    The general   love and kindness of human beings   worldwide, is not

SUPPORTED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE either.  That does not mean that people worldwide do not show love and kindness.

 Generalized statements like that are not demonstrative of any specific fact.

Basically, the entire article, per its claims and conclusions,  is intended to rob invidual students

of any decision making ability  concerning their own development and  personal improvement.

 Human beings, historically, are highly innovative,  self-sufficient, and creative to the extreme.

The presupposition that "psychological science" has been involved  in all of human history to

"support"  ideas  and learning strategies is laughable  as a proposition.

   Neither is "Wired" magazin  authoritative on   Education.  The magazine's editors must be  very desperate for something to write about to publish  a claim about  something termed an "urban myth" and "burying" it.  .

.

"This is the mistaken idea that we learn better when the instruction we receive is tailored to our preferred way of learning."---(the Wired Article)

 The article is a mix of fact and fiction.  Its claims are not factually substantiated

and the entire article is premised upon   a term that is not specifically defined.

Where the article might have a definition for "learning styles"  it does not show that all students  adhere to a  flawed "learning style".  The  article does have some credible referrences to  ideas  such as

Right Brain/Left Brain  theory and so forth; but the article does not show  that self-directed study is ineffective.  Neither does the article show that any student's "learning style" is not a mix of

Self-Direction combined with formal instruction.  Basically, the article is a mix of "bashing"  people who try to escape the  oppressive atmosphere of the Brick---And---Mortar  schools,   and  and bashing   any form of innovation.

   For example,  students who appear in Italki are implementing  a  "learning style" and nothing in the Wired   article shows this to be an ineffective learning style.

Relax Bruce.  You've been in attack mode since your first sentence.  You've discredited the article, discredited me, and contributed nothing constructive.  Stand down.

"Innovation can be the best way to solve a clearly identified problem. Innovation for its own sake, not supported by need, can be a problem in itself.

I agree with the professor who, in the beginning of the article said, "I learn by doing." We learn to speak by speaking, not by watching YouTube videos."---Eddie

#1  You  failed to show that students of language are not operating on the basis of NEED.

#2  You failee to show that your agreement with the professor who said  that "I learn by doing."  suffices for an objective proof of anything.

#3  You have no objective data, and neither  does the Wired article,  factually showing that students do not "learn" by watching   YouTube (or other)  Videos.  Audio-Visual materials of all kinds have been employed all over the world to  facilitate language learning.

 Unless of course you have objective data showing that:

 (A) Students do not operate on the basis of NEED.

(B)  Pronunciation and Speaking exercises are never conducted in association with

audio-visual  study aids

(C)   Watching Videos and Hearing   Audio tracts  prohibit  SPEECH.

   If you have no objective data which supports your conclusions, you have no credible  argument.