I’ve always been sceptical of the idea of ‘learning styles’. Psychological models of learning and memory suggest we use all of our sensory modalities to learn (it depends upon what we’re learning). The questionnaires used to ‘measure’ VAK preferences are laughably poor (‘I hear you’ = A, ‘I see what you mean’ = V, ‘I feel you have a point’ = K). We want children to process information at a semantic level (i.e. understand what it means) rather than more superficial levels of processing. Finally, I have concerns that VAK systems unfairly label children – and lead them to believe they are limited in the way they can learn.
Anyway, here’s Daniel Willingham explaining the point with more clarity …
Evidence into Practice 
Pingback: The pyramid of lies | Evidence into practice @ Turnford
Pingback: The restless relationship between science and teaching | Evidence into practice @ Turnford
Pingback: More nonsense for teachers to avoid | Evidence into practice
I believe Dan Willingham is very precise when he speaks on this subject. His assertions are very specific as are the defitions of terms (including ‘learning styles’)
I think maybe you should ass the words…”among other things” to your statement above which says…” Psychological models of learning and memory suggest we use all of our sensory modalities to learn (it depends upon what we’re learning)”
ie…perhaps it should say ‘Psychological models of learning and memory suggest we use all of our sensory modalities to learn (it depends upon what we’re learning, among other things)’
LikeLike
Pingback: Pseudoscience has nested in schools | Evidence into practice
Pingback: The science of learning | Evidence into practice
Pingback: The Science of Learning | Blogs of the Month
Pingback: Perpetual motion machines do not exist | Evidence into practice