In elementary school, it was always the slow learners who the teachers classified or who self-selected as "kinesthetic learners" when this topic came up: Hands-on teaching was far more patient than lecturing. Lazy students like me were called "visual learners" because we didn't care to bury ourselves in state texts written for 10 year-olds. I sensed that the theory was bunk then, and it's bunk now. From the cited UVA article: http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-Oc...

  > Third, learning-styles theory has succeeded in becoming
  > “common knowledge.” Its widespread acceptance serves as
  > an unfortunately compelling reason to believe it. This
  > is accompanied by a well-known cognitive phenomenon
  > called the confirmation bias.

That point is made clear by other comments in this thread treating the existence of these "styles" as a matter of fact.

Differences between students don't prove that learning is constrained to a single sense. It's a bizarre hypothesis and it only serves educators.