Tom Bennett criticises VAK and teacher training: what do you think?

[kesstrel]

"I believed we lived in a post-VAK world. World War VAK was over, I thought. Apparently not. This undergraduate had been asked – in seriousness, without a trace of irony or accompanying shame – to observe a lesson and write about it "from the perspective of VAK". I nearly choked on my own tears. …..The fact that a Initial Teacher Training provider – you know, the laboratory of the next generation of teachers, who are in turn the midwives of the ambitions of thousands of children – could even go near this kind of guff, is a potent, pungent litmus of what is still considered acceptable in teacher training. I teach philosophy and RS, and I am, at least, expected to know a good deal about my subjects, and to know when something is a fact, and when something is an opinion. If Faculties of Education are expected to be intellectually, academically respectable and if, more importantly, we are supposed to treat their professional guidance as expert in nature, they need to be not just bang on-trend, but far ahead of the curve…
community.tes.co.uk/tom_bennett/b/weblog/archive/2014/04/23/zombie-bollocks-world-war-vak-isn-39-t-over-yet.aspx#.VTokOe8RAcd.twitter"

I quite agree with him.
In my opinion, VAK was another one of those half thought out theories that take hold in and of education. They (it ) somehow gain a life and importance of their own that is out of all proportion to their actual proven value AND they are then used as yet another stick with which to beat teachers.
The research behind the initial ideas on different learning styles was never intended to be boiled down to a simplistic sound bite nor was it intended to identify (and in some cases, constrain) learners; unfortunately that's what happened in some cases.
In my LA, it became the buzz for a good couple of years; private consultants earned thousands delivering fairly limited INSET and teachers found themselves having to prove on planning, in books and in every discussion that they were addressing the needs of their visual, auditory and kinaesthetic learners.
If we'd just been given a bit of background info on other theory behind it and encouraged to make sure that learning included a range of activities/ opportunities covering the different styles, the children would've benefitted just as much (in my opinion).

I don't understand your vitriol tbh.
People do learn better in different ways.
Teachers should be aware of this.
We should all understand that some people need to do, some need a visual model, or picture, or diagram, others like to listen to information they need to absorb.

I've never been one to get bogged down in names of specific theories - if you stay in teaching long enough you know the same ideas they threw out with the bath water will come round again 'packaged' with a new name, but IMO, and indeed, IME, trainee teachers should be made aware there are a lot of different ways for dc to learn and those 3 headings are as good a place to start as any.

That's the problem with trends though, what was white-hot bluesky thinking one term is obsolete and mocked monments later. Wait another five years and it will be the current thinking that's in the pillory.
Sometimes there are elements of value within even the shiniest of bandwagons, VAK is one of them, and given the time to reflect and embed the best practice, teachers and children benefit.
But there never is time, because the next truck of geegaws is on its way.

I am teacher training at the moment and VAK has barely been mentioned to be honest!
I have written about VAK (and other theories that state that there are 9 learning styles) and theorists that debunk learning styles in an assignment, only a very small part of the assignment to be fair.
It's all AFL, differentiation and reflection here.

brain gym

drink to think

etc
etc

My school's always about ten years behind everyone else. I'm expecting them to do Thinking Hats soon.

Haven't heard of 'drink to think', that's hilarious- my old head called it 'hydration for learning'

We should all understand that some people need to do, some need a visual model, or picture, or diagram, others like to listen to information they need to absorb.

This is bollocks. However much of a 'visual learner' you think someone is, they aren't going to learn to ride a bicycle by watching videos.

It is, of course, useful to present information in different ways, but if a diagram is decent, then it is going to be useful to most people, not just the ones that you have designated as 'people who need diagrams but not to hear stuff'.

'Present your information in different ways' is good teaching advice. "Give out a questionnaire asking if they are more likely to use the phrase 'I see what you mean' or 'I hear what you're saying' and then package your information to them in a particular format based on the results" is just bullshit and should be called out as bullshit.

There's a suggestion in the comments under Tom Bennett's article that the ITTs that are still teaching this should be named and shamed...would that help, I wonder? Would they even care?

My daughter came home from her year 11 English Literature class yesterday outraged because the student teacher had told the class: "Now, you can do this in any way you like, by mind-mapping, or a graph, or mime, or if you want to be boring you can just write some paragraphs..."!!!! She asked me, Mum, why would anyone want to be an English teacher if they thought writing was boring? I had to explain to her about VAK...

VAK is bollocks.

Try this:

Visual: read this
Auditory: listen to me
Kinaesthetic: write this

Oddly the VAK nuts never can see this.

Learning Styles are also bollocks.

Agree, love Tom Bennett. Often want to pin his blogs on the staffroom 'learning board' - highlighted. Never had the courage.

Someone mentioned thinking hats in our staff meeting the other day. I think they felt my eyes boring into their soul.

But the hours we spent learning about Thinking Hats and how to use them. Sourcing them, getting the children to understand the vocabulary...the thinking animals that helped us with our learning, including the connecting spider and the creative unicorn and the tenacious tortoise (always reminded me of Discworld martial arts)...what has happened to all those specially-purchased beanie babies?
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan?

My DS's school uses unicorns and tortoises and cats and whatnot. Oh god, is that just thinking hats for babies?

Do you need spider to help you?

VAK and learning styles are bollocks.
Variety is good in lessons but all this psychobabble is embarrassing.