I believe the whole idea of learning styles is a pseudoscience, so you not finding more correlations could actually be the correct answer… which almost no one cares about, because negative findings are boring.
Publication bias is probably even greater sin than p-hacking, because in theory any study that found some result using p-hacking could be follow by a few failed attempts at replication. Except that those failed attempts at replication usually don’t get published.
The idea of learning styles as “fits better to a specific person” wasn’t interesting to me—instead I took it as inspiration for natural division of “ways people could learn this thing in general”.
As for publication bias, I don’t think anyone published their research. … but if there had been a really interesting result, I bet someone would have tried to get their research published somehow.
I believe the whole idea of learning styles is a pseudoscience, so you not finding more correlations could actually be the correct answer… which almost no one cares about, because negative findings are boring.
Publication bias is probably even greater sin than p-hacking, because in theory any study that found some result using p-hacking could be follow by a few failed attempts at replication. Except that those failed attempts at replication usually don’t get published.
The idea of learning styles as “fits better to a specific person” wasn’t interesting to me—instead I took it as inspiration for natural division of “ways people could learn this thing in general”.
As for publication bias, I don’t think anyone published their research. … but if there had been a really interesting result, I bet someone would have tried to get their research published somehow.