WD - Gardner's theory is not the same as VAK. More about how can you measure intelligence & whether IQ tests focus on too narrow a definition.

Whilst you may be using this to work on weak areas - others may not & may just be labelling students as needing one type of input. Woolly theory or woolly implementation -- either has the potential to have a poor outcome.

kent1 has a good point. Theory is good for developing models that can be tested experimentally & lead to new/deeper understanding of how the brain works.

But teachers need something a lot more practical.

 I take all of the above points-and I hope posters realised that I don't believe in the VAK approach as a truth, but use bits of the idea. But what I have noticed is that some teachers in literate subjects such as History, English and Geography tend to teach how they were taught i.e. talk and discuss then note take.For a lot of the students this is not a way that helps them to learn. My preferred emphasis is to look at how students engage with, and develop, work. A number of teachers simply see a lesson as 20 minute teacher exposition followed by student task based on the teacher led exposition (usually based on a text). This is fine as part of a range of approaches over a run of work, but entirely unsatisfactory if it is the only mode of delivery.

In a way 'questionable' ideas such as VAK and Gardiners Multiple Intelligences (and have you noticed how people who use this skate over the bit where Gardiner says not all M.I. are the same in terms academic intelligence) have been adopted by schools as a response to some fairly indifferent teaching/ and or SMT seeking of Holy grails to boost results.

For myself the majority of my lesson structure is based on Blooms Taxonomy ( again not entirely in favour with everyone), bits of Gardiner, bits of me, and bits I've nicked off of colleagues over the years. 

ivallance:

So far there has been little or no research into whether it actually works in the way it's supposed to yet Ofsted inspectors are looking for evidence that it is being used.

The link below takes you to the latest report from Ofsted about teaching maths in secondary schools.  It mentions non-routine problems and open-ended tasks.  There is no mention of VAK.  I assume that this guidance clearly shows what they will be looking for.  Some people are leading us to believe that they are looking for VAK in lessons.  They aren't.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/Mathematics-understanding-the-score-Improving-practice-in-mathematics-secondary

I guess it's easier to get everyone to tick a box saying VAK than to develop the good teaching set out in the report.

"Each person has 1 dominant characteristic: hearing, visualising or feeling (i.e. sensation). Other 2 are always weaker"

There is no evidence whatsoever that the brain has a preferred modality

 "During hypnosis the conscious mind is switched off"- no idea what this means, given that susceptability to hypnosis is a continuous not dicrete variable.

"During hypnosis you talk to the subconscious mind which is the one that stores our memories."

No idea what this means either. So, if all memories are unconscious how can I choose consciously to recall what happened yesterday? How can I be aware of consciously recalling somehting?

 I'm all in favour of variety, as I'm every teacher is, but VAK is such utter codswallop. Firslty, we don't test the visual, auditory, kinaesthetic qualities of information, but we test its meaning. So, it doesn not matter so much how the info is presented as long as it is undertsood. Of course some information lends itself better to certain modlaities. For example, the sturcture of a flower is better understood with a diagram.

The other problem is kinaesthetic- I've no idea what counts as kinaesthetic. Any activity can be kinaesthetic- reading involves movement of eyes and is kinaesthetic?

But we don't forget things that are important to us. I forget plenty of things that are not important like when I am supposed to attend a meeting etc. Your answer seems to imply that people can forget things that are profoundly important. However, a cursory glance at the problems caused to people who have had terrible experiences suggests that there is no unconscious suppository for memories. If there were, we would dump things that distress us there.

The other problem with what you say is that it is largely unfalsifiable- can't be disproven. If I forget something then it must be lodged in my unconscious but there is no way to test this.

 The reason why I hear my alarm is that when I sleep I am not comatose, just in a different state of awareness.

 We forget things that are not well understood, not paid attention to or which are simply not of great interest to us (lacking motivation). While teaching can certainly boost motivation and understanding, it really does not have some special means of coaxing info from some reified unconscious store.