I agree that the distinction between learning styles is problematic – the introduction of “mixed” or “balanced” learner styles when we looked at this during my CELTA were enough to indicate that these cut-and-dried learner styles were not without their problems.

The article you linked definitely highlighted the problems inherent in such labelling – the tendency for the label to stick, etc…

The point of the distinctions in the resources was more intended as a tool for me than a way of labelling the students. I wasn’t told to include anything in the plan, but I feel that I have a tendency to produce static lessons that reflect my teaching background — Japanese private sector — and what I’ve become used to because of that. I realised that in a three hour session, I am going to need to include activities that get the students up and moving, or interacting and using English in a way that involves students doing more than working with a neighbour, or completing activities at their desks. The use of the audio/visual/kinaesthetic distinction is to remind me to work to that realisation.

I ask because, personally, although I agree that people learn in different ways and we therefore need a variety of methods, I’m not convinced by the categorisations, This article from Education Guardian makes interesting reading:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1827622,00.html