Andrew Old describes this in his 'Teaching Battleground' blog:
https://teachingbattleground.wordpress. ... rike-back/
I wish research-attentive folk would get just as passionate about challenging the continued practice and promotion of 'multi-cueing reading strategies' which amount to teaching children to guess words when reading new texts.Learning Styles Strike Back
November 30, 2015
One of the few signs of progress in changing the debate in education had been a concerted rejection of the most obviously pseudo-scientific parts of the education climate, namely Brain Gym and learning styles. The greater involvement of cognitive psychologists in education, (e.g. Dweck and Willingham), challenges from outside education (e.g. Goldacre) , the creation of ResearchED and the opening up of debate on social media had helped create a climate where these most obvious frauds could not hope to flourish. Even those conducting and promoting rotten research would use opposition to learning styles and Brain Gym to signal that they were not complete charlatans.
Even in England where Systematic Synthetic Phonics is now statutory and heavily promoted as 'official' guidance, it is evident that 'multi-cueing reading strategies' and the 'Reading Recovery' programme and approach still prevail.
This really does need attention - and 'Reading Recovery' is still entrenched at the Institute of Education.
We can also see from under-graduate articles that mixed methods is still being promoted through various universities as is evident through their published articles. I drew attention to continued misunderstanding here:
http://phonicsinternational.com/forum/v ... .php?t=952