These bizarre ideas first cropped up near the start of the millennium, and have since been debunked many, many, many, many times. It’s slightly disheartening looking at the dates of each of those linked articles. If you’re not convinced, or you’re a kid who can’t read good, check out this youtube video of a rather sensible explanation.
I recently bought a big pile of books on teaching and learning as part of this whole teacher training malarky. One of which was this:
First published … 2014.
Perhaps I should have been more cautious, the front cover afterall resembles a 90’s Clip Art / Pat Sharpe mash-up. I actually like some parts of the book (I confess I haven’t read the whole thing yet), but glaring at me on pages 45 to 47 …
“Card sorts or pair matching activities – These are good for engaging the kinaesthetic learner…”
I’m not sure I want to print much more of those pages, but pages 45 and 46 are included on the ‘Look Inside’ section of the book on Amazon.
A popular online learning tool (advocated by Cramlington Learning Village) also has a large section of its student home page dedicated to the VAK test.
Teacher training books that are recommended to student teachers explicitly advocate learning styles
Teacher training programs (NOT MINE!) discuss them during training
School leadership teams are still pushing it on people right now…
Take a moment to reflect on the utter nonsense that these questions from a VAK test ask:
So we need to do something.
Do me a favour and check your leadership team doesn’t still believe in this bollocks. Challenge your teacher trainers, challenge your managers, don’t believe everything you read. VAK is still rife and it’s polluting education.
The ONLY good thing you can take away from VAK approaches is that variety is the spice of life, and variety will stop your lessons from being dull. It goes no deeper than that I’m afraid.