# Explicit Exclusions

This library explicitly excludes the following practices. They are either debunked by evidence, poorly evidenced, or so generic they fail the expertise threshold. No skill in this library references, alludes to, or builds upon these frameworks.

This is a feature, not a limitation. Schools need clear guidance on what *not* to adopt, and this list provides it.

---

## Learning Styles (VARK, Dunn & Dunn, etc.)

**Status:** Debunked.

**Why excluded:** No credible evidence that matching teaching to a student's preferred learning style improves learning outcomes. The Pashler et al. (2008) systematic review — *Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence* — is definitive: the research required to validate learning styles theory has not produced positive results, and several studies have produced negative results.

**Key reference:** Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9*(3), 105–119.

**Note:** This library does use *dual coding* (Skill 08), which involves complementary verbal and visual representations. This is fundamentally different from learning styles — dual coding provides *both* representations to *all* students, rather than matching a single modality to a supposed preference.

---

## Cone of Learning / Learning Pyramid

**Status:** Fabricated.

**Why excluded:** The percentage figures ("we remember 10% of what we read, 90% of what we teach others") are entirely fabricated. They have never appeared in any published research. The pyramid is frequently misattributed to Edgar Dale, who published a "Cone of Experience" (1946, 1969) that contained no percentage figures and was a classification of media types, not a theory of retention.

**Key references:**
- Letrud, K., & Hernes, S. (2016). The diffusion of the learning pyramid myths in academia. *SpringerPlus, 5*, 1700.
- Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014). The mythical retention chart and the corruption of Dale's cone of experience. *Educational Technology, 54*(6), 6–16.

---

## Brain Gym

**Status:** Pseudoscience.

**Why excluded:** No neurological basis for claims that specific physical movements improve cognitive function or "integrate" brain hemispheres. The theoretical framework is based on discredited concepts from applied kinesiology.

**Key reference:** Hyatt, K. J. (2007). Brain Gym: Building stronger brains or wishful thinking? *Remedial and Special Education, 28*(2), 117–124.

---

## Left Brain / Right Brain Dominance as Teaching Framework

**Status:** Debunked.

**Why excluded:** Neuroimaging research has conclusively shown that individuals do not preferentially use one hemisphere over the other. While hemispheric specialisation exists for specific functions (e.g., language lateralisation), the idea that students are "left-brained" (logical) or "right-brained" (creative) and should be taught accordingly has no empirical support.

**Key reference:** Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. *PLoS ONE, 8*(8), e71275.

---

## Multiple Intelligences as Teaching Prescription

**Status:** Misapplication of theory.

**Why excluded:** Gardner's (1983) Multiple Intelligences theory describes dimensions of intelligence, not learning. The application — "teach to each student's intelligence type" — is not supported by evidence and was never intended by Gardner. Gardner himself has publicly objected to this use of his work.

**Key references:**
- Gardner, H. (2006). *Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice.* Basic Books. (See Gardner's own caveats.)
- Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. *Educational Psychologist, 41*(4), 207–225.

---

## Bloom's Taxonomy as a Hierarchy of Quality

**Status:** Systematic misuse.

**Why excluded from hierarchy framing:** Bloom's Taxonomy (1956, revised Anderson & Krathwohl 2001) is a *classification system* for cognitive processes. It was never intended as a hierarchy where "higher-order" tasks are always superior to "lower-order" ones. The endemic misuse — "we should always aim for the top of Bloom's" — produces poorly designed lessons that skip necessary knowledge-building.

**Our position:** Skills in this library may reference Bloom's as a classification tool (what type of thinking does this task require?) but never as a quality hierarchy (higher is always better).

**Key reference:** Berger, R. (2003). *An Ethic of Excellence.* Heinemann. (On the importance of craftsmanship at all cognitive levels.)

---

## Growth Mindset Interventions (as currently implemented)

**Status:** Real theory, weak school implementation evidence.

**Why excluded from standalone skill:** Dweck's (2006) research on fixed vs. growth mindset is genuine and well-replicated in laboratory settings. However, school-based growth mindset interventions have produced weak and inconsistent effects at scale. The Sisk et al. (2018) meta-analysis found small overall effects, and many school implementations bear little resemblance to the original research.

**Our position:** Skills may reference growth mindset where relevant but will not build standalone growth mindset interventions. If referenced, the implementation gap is noted.

**Key references:**
- Dweck, C. S. (2006). *Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.* Random House.
- Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under what circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. *Psychological Science, 29*(4), 549–571.

---

## Grit as a Teachable Trait

**Status:** Interesting research, weak intervention evidence.

**Why excluded from standalone skill:** Duckworth's (2007, 2016) work on grit as a predictor of achievement is interesting but the interventions designed to build grit in schools have very weak evidence. Credé et al. (2017) meta-analysis found grit's predictive validity was largely redundant with conscientiousness.

**Key references:**
- Duckworth, A. L. (2016). *Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance.* Scribner.
- Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113*(3), 492–511.

---

## VAK (Visual/Auditory/Kinaesthetic) Learning

**Status:** Debunked. Variant of learning styles.

**Why excluded:** Same evidence problems as VARK/learning styles above. No credible evidence for matching instruction to VAK preferences. Excluded for the same reasons.

---

## Most "21st Century Skills" Frameworks

**Status:** Weakly evidenced, produces generic outputs.

**Why excluded:** Most 21st century skills frameworks (e.g., P21, various "4Cs" models) are vaguely defined, weakly evidenced, and produce generic suggestions when operationalised. Skills in this library that address critical thinking, collaboration, or communication do so through specific, well-evidenced frameworks (e.g., Wineburg's lateral reading, Mercer's exploratory talk) rather than through generic 21st century skills framing.

**Exception:** Where a specific skill within these frameworks has its own strong evidence base (e.g., lateral reading from Wineburg), it is included on the strength of that specific evidence.

---

*This exclusion list is maintained as new evidence emerges. Practices may be added or (theoretically) removed if the evidence base changes substantially.*
