Introduction: Why VARK Learning Styles Still Matter in 2026

If you have ever typed a question like “why can’t I learn from reading textbooks?” or “am I a visual learner?” into a search engine, you have already brushed up against one of the most popular ideas in education: learning styles. At the center of that conversation sits the VARK model — an acronym standing for Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic — which has been used in classrooms, corporate training rooms, and university orientations for more than three decades.

VARK learning styles were developed by New Zealand educator Neil Fleming in 1987 and formally presented with colleague Colleen Mills in 1992. Fleming’s original motivation was simple: he noticed that despite teachers presenting information clearly, some students still struggled to process it. His solution was a self-assessment tool — the VARK Questionnaire — that helped learners identify how they personally preferred to receive and process new information.

Today, VARK is one of over 70 different learning style frameworks in circulation, yet it remains the most widely recognized because of its simplicity, its focus on practical study strategies, and the accessibility of its free online questionnaire at vark-learn.com. As of 2024, millions of students and educators worldwide have taken the VARK assessment.

Yet VARK is also one of the most debated concepts in modern educational psychology. A growing body of research has called into question whether matching instruction to learning style actually improves academic outcomes — a debate that anyone serious about learning or teaching needs to understand. This guide gives you the full picture: what VARK is, how to use it, and what the science honestly says.

What Is the VARK Model? Core Concepts Explained

The VARK model describes four sensory modalities through which people prefer to receive, process, and communicate information. It is important to note upfront that VARK measures preferences — not abilities, not intelligence, and not fixed neurological traits. Fleming himself has always been explicit: having a Visual preference does not mean you are incapable of learning through reading. It means you have a stated preference for diagrams and visual representations when given a choice.

Here is a detailed breakdown of each of the four VARK modalities:

Modality	Full Name	Core Preference	Typical Study Tools
V	Visual	Charts, diagrams, spatial arrangements, symbols	Mind maps, flowcharts, color-coded notes, infographics
A	Aural	Listening, speaking, discussion, audio	Podcasts, lectures, group discussion, recording yourself
R	Read/Write	Written words, text, lists, printed materials	Textbooks, notes, essays, definitions, rewriting summaries
K	Kinesthetic	Hands-on experience, practice, real-world examples	Labs, simulations, fieldwork, case studies, role-play

Visual (V): More Than Just Pictures

Visual learners are often misidentified as people who prefer videos, PowerPoint slides, or photographs. In Fleming’s model, Visual specifically refers to a preference for information presented through graphs, charts, flowcharts, maps, diagrams, hierarchies, and spatial arrangements. Photos and videos actually fall under Kinesthetic because they depict reality.

A true Visual learner in the VARK sense benefits most from: converting text into diagrams, using color-coding systems, drawing concept maps that show relationships between ideas, replacing words with symbols and arrows, and whiteboard-style summaries that show the structure of knowledge at a glance. These learners often describe understanding something as “seeing how it fits together.”

In a classroom or corporate training setting, Visual learners respond well to: organizational charts, process flows, before-and-after comparison tables, visual timelines, and any format that shows the relationship between pieces of information spatially.

Aural (A): It Is Not Just About Listening

The Aural modality goes beyond simply listening to a lecture. Aural learners prefer information that is spoken, heard, or discussed. Crucially, this includes speaking themselves — Aural learners often process information by talking it through, whether in a study group, with a tutor, or even by explaining concepts aloud to themselves.

Aural learners benefit from: attending lectures and participating in discussions, recording themselves summarizing key points and replaying the recordings, using text-to-speech tools, joining or forming study groups where verbal debate is encouraged, reading summaries aloud, and using rhythm or mnemonics to remember sequences. They often find silence counterproductive and may prefer to study with background audio.

An often-overlooked aspect of the Aural modality is that it includes email, instant messaging, and informal written communication — because these are conversations, not documents. This distinction matters when designing training programs or communication strategies.

Read/Write (R): The Power of the Written Word

Read/Write learners prefer information delivered through text. This is the modality most closely associated with traditional academic settings — textbooks, lecture notes, essays, dictionaries, and printed materials. These learners tend to be strong writers and note-takers, and often rewrite their notes multiple times as a form of active processing.

Effective strategies for Read/Write learners include: making detailed written notes during lectures, converting diagrams and charts back into written lists, writing outlines before essays or presentations, using glossaries and definitions extensively, making annotated bibliographies, and re-reading highlighted text. They often prefer written instructions to verbal ones and may become frustrated when asked to “just try it” without first reading the manual.

Kinesthetic (K): Learning Through Doing

The Kinesthetic modality is the most frequently misunderstood. It does not simply mean a learner likes to “move around.” In VARK, Kinesthetic refers to a preference for connecting learning to reality through experience, practice, examples, and concrete application. A Kinesthetic learner is motivated by the question “when will I ever use this?”

Kinesthetic learners benefit from: hands-on laboratory sessions, apprenticeship-style learning, case studies drawn from real life, simulations and role-play, internships and field trips, trial-and-error experimentation, and worked examples that show not just the answer but the process. They often struggle with abstract theory disconnected from application and prefer short, active learning bursts over extended passive listening sessions.

In healthcare education, Kinesthetic learners often thrive in clinical placements and simulation labs. In business training, they excel in scenario-based learning and real client project work.

Multimodal Learners: The Norm, Not the Exception

One of the most important findings from decades of VARK research is that most people are not strongly unimodal — that is, most people do not fit neatly into a single category. Studies consistently show that between 50% and 70% of people who complete the VARK Questionnaire receive a multimodal profile, meaning they score comparably across two, three, or all four modalities.

Key Statistic Research using the VARK questionnaire consistently finds that 50-70% of respondents are multimodal, suggesting that the model’s value may lie more in strategy diversification than in single-category matching.

Fleming himself describes multimodal learners as having two strategies available to them:

1. Context-switching: The learner identifies which modality is most appropriate for the current situation and deploys strategies accordingly. A multimodal learner might use Read/Write strategies for complex theory but switch to Kinesthetic strategies for applied problem-solving.
2. Synthesis: The learner uses all their preferred modalities simultaneously to build deeper, more integrated understanding — for example, by drawing a diagram (Visual), discussing it with a peer (Aural), writing a summary (Read/Write), and building a model (Kinesthetic) all within the same study session.

The prevalence of multimodal profiles has an important practical implication: any good instructional design should naturally incorporate multiple modalities, not because every learner has multiple preferences, but because rich, varied presentation serves virtually everyone — including unimodal learners who benefit from seeing information represented in different ways.

The VARK Questionnaire: How to Discover Your Learning Preference

The official VARK Questionnaire is freely available at vark-learn.com. It consists of 16 scenario-based questions, each describing a real-life situation and offering four response options — one corresponding to each VARK modality. There are no right or wrong answers.

Example scenario (paraphrased): “You are about to plan a new trip abroad. What is your first step?” Response options might include: looking at a map (Visual), asking a well-traveled friend (Aural), reading a guidebook (Read/Write), or remembering what worked on a previous trip (Kinesthetic).

After completing all 16 questions, scores are tallied for V, A, R, and K. High scores in a single category suggest a unimodal preference. Similar scores across multiple categories indicate a multimodal profile. The questionnaire generates a personal results page with recommended study strategies tailored to the profile.

Important caveats about the questionnaire:

• Context matters: Your scores may shift depending on the subject matter. A learner may prefer Aural strategies for language learning but Kinesthetic strategies for engineering.
• Preferences are not fixed: VARK profiles can change over time as learners develop new skills and encounter new learning environments.
• It measures preference, not aptitude: A high Kinesthetic score does not mean you cannot read effectively. It means you prefer hands-on approaches when given a choice.
• Self-report limitations: As with all self-report tools, VARK scores reflect how people think they learn, which may differ from how they actually perform across different modalities.

VARK Study Strategies: A Comprehensive Toolkit

One of VARK’s greatest practical contributions is the rich library of modality-specific study strategies it provides. The following table offers a comprehensive reference for students at every level:

VARK Type	Input Strategies (Taking In Info)	Output Strategies (Demonstrating Knowledge)
Visual (V)	Convert notes into diagrams; use flowcharts; color-code categories; draw concept maps; use symbols instead of words; reconstruct images from memory	Redraw diagrams from memory; annotate charts; replace written summaries with visual representations; use graphic organizers for essays
Aural (A)	Attend all lectures; record and replay; join study groups; read notes aloud; use text-to-speech; discuss topics with peers before exams; use mnemonics and rhymes	Explain concepts aloud; record 5-minute verbal summaries; practice with oral exam simulations; teach topics to others; use Q&A with a study partner
Read/Write (R)	Take detailed written notes; rewrite notes in your own words; read textbooks and annotate; use dictionaries and glossaries; write summaries after each chapter	Write practice essays; create bullet-point summaries; answer past paper questions in full written form; create written study guides for revision
Kinesthetic (K)	Connect every concept to a real-world example; use case studies; do practice problems in realistic scenarios; visit relevant sites; use simulations and lab sessions	Build models or prototypes; create demonstrations; use role-play; solve applied problems; create portfolios of practical work; use timed practice under exam conditions

Applying VARK in a Corporate Training Context

VARK has moved well beyond the classroom. Learning and Development (L&D) professionals in corporate environments use VARK principles to design training programs that cater to diverse employee preferences. The key insight is that a one-size-fits-all approach — typically a slide deck and a lecture — serves only Read/Write and some Aural learners effectively.

Corporate trainers using VARK principles might:

• Pair procedural documentation (Read/Write) with process flow diagrams (Visual)
• Include discussion forums and video calls in e-learning programs (Aural)
• Build scenario simulations, case studies, and hands-on practice modules (Kinesthetic)
• Offer multiple pathways through the same content so learners can engage via their preferred mode

Research in corporate settings suggests that multimodal training design improves both learner engagement and knowledge retention, regardless of whether individual preferences are formally assessed.

The Scientific Controversy: Does Matching Learning Styles Actually Work?

No guide to VARK learning styles would be complete — or honest — without a serious examination of the scientific evidence. This is the most important section of this article for educators, trainers, and anyone making instructional design decisions.

The Meshing Hypothesis: The Core Claim Under Scrutiny

The meshing hypothesis is the claim that learning outcomes are optimized when instruction is matched to a student’s learning style. It is the foundational assumption that makes VARK (and all learning style models) practically useful for instructional design. If the meshing hypothesis is true, a Visual learner should score higher on a test when taught with diagrams than when taught with text. If false, the preference may be real but irrelevant to outcomes.

The evidence for the meshing hypothesis is, at best, thin. A landmark 2008 systematic review by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork — published in the prestigious journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest — reviewed all available experimental studies and concluded that valid experimental evidence supporting the meshing hypothesis was essentially absent. The authors noted that the kind of evidence needed would require showing that students who scored high on a particular style performed better when taught in that style compared to other styles — and that this interaction effect had almost never been convincingly demonstrated.

Key Research Finding A 2019 study at Indiana University by Husmann and O’Loughlin found that anatomy students who adopted study strategies aligned with their VARK profile performed no better on exams than those whose strategies did not match. Approximately 70% of students in the study did not even naturally adopt strategies aligned with their own stated VARK preferences.

The “Neuromyth” Label: Is It Fair?

Some researchers, including Prof. Phil Newton at Swansea University Medical School and cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham at the University of Virginia, have labeled learning styles a “neuromyth” — a popular but empirically unsupported belief about how the brain works. Willingham’s widely read 2018 article in Scientific American argued that the persistence of learning styles beliefs is more a result of intuitive appeal and wishful thinking than evidence.

The criticism is specific: it is not that preferences do not exist (they clearly do), but that having a preference for a particular way of receiving information does not mean that instructional format improves the person’s actual learning outcomes. By analogy: many people prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, but that does not mean they absorb more calories from chocolate.

The concern among educators is that rigidly labeling students as a particular type of learner can:

• Discourage learners from developing skills outside their preferred modality
• Lead to inefficient instructional design resources being spent on personalization that yields no measurable benefit
• Substitute for more evidence-based differentiated instruction approaches
• Create a fixed, limiting self-concept (e.g., “I am not a reader” becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy)

The Defense of VARK: What Fleming and Supporters Say

Fleming and his supporters have consistently pushed back against the neuromyth characterization, and their arguments deserve fair hearing. First, they argue that VARK explicitly measures learning preferences, not learning styles in the neurological sense. Fleming has been clear that VARK is not a theory of how the brain processes information — it is a practical framework for metacognitive reflection.

Second, supporters argue that even if the meshing hypothesis is unproven, the act of engaging with VARK prompts learners to think about how they study and to try new strategies. This metacognitive awareness has value independent of whether the strategies are perfectly matched to a neural profile.

Third, Fleming and researcher Richard Felder of NC State University have pointed to methodological weaknesses in some of the critical studies, including short study periods, artificial laboratory conditions, and outcome measures that may not capture the full range of learning benefits.

The fairest conclusion is that VARK is best used as a reflective tool and a prompt for strategy diversification — not as a prescriptive system that determines exactly how every piece of content must be delivered.

Position	Core Argument	Key Proponents
Pro-VARK (Practical Use)	VARK measures real preferences that can inform metacognitive awareness and strategy selection. Useful as a reflection tool.	Neil Fleming, Richard Felder (NC State), many educators and L&D professionals
Skeptical (Evidence-Based)	The meshing hypothesis lacks experimental support. Learning preferences do not reliably translate into learning outcome improvements when matched.	Pashler et al. (2008), Phil Newton (Swansea), Daniel Willingham, Nancy Chick (Vanderbilt)
Middle Ground	Multimodal instruction benefits all learners regardless of individual styles. VARK has value as a conversation starter but should not drive curriculum design.	Most contemporary instructional designers; UDL framework proponents

VARK vs. Other Learning Models: How Does It Compare?

VARK exists within a crowded field of competing frameworks. Understanding how it compares to other models helps educators and learners make more informed choices about which tools to use.

Model	Creator	Categories	Key Difference from VARK
VARK	Neil Fleming (1987)	4 (V, A, R, K)	Focuses on sensory modality preferences for information intake/output
Multiple Intelligences	Howard Gardner, Harvard (1983)	7-9 intelligences	Broader — includes musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and naturalist intelligences. Measures abilities, not preferences
Kolb’s Learning Cycle	David Kolb (1984)	4 stages / 4 styles	Process-based — describes how learners move through concrete experience, reflection, abstraction, and experimentation
Myers-Briggs / MBTI	Briggs & Myers (1940s)	16 types	Personality-based, not learning-specific. Measures psychological preferences across 4 dimensions
Honey & Mumford	Peter Honey, Alan Mumford (1986)	4 styles (Activist, Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist)	Derived from Kolb — emphasizes behavioral tendencies in learning situations rather than sensory modalities
Felder-Silverman	Richard Felder, Linda Silverman (1988)	5 dimensions	Designed specifically for engineering education. Includes active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, sequential/global

Key takeaway: VARK is unique in its specific focus on sensory and communicative input/output preferences, its brevity (16 questions), and its practical orientation toward study strategies. Other models offer broader psychological or process-based frameworks. None of the major models has achieved definitive experimental validation of the meshing hypothesis.

Universal Design for Learning: The Evidence-Based Alternative

For educators and instructional designers looking for an evidence-based framework for diverse learners, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offers a robust alternative that incorporates many of VARK’s practical insights without relying on individual style labeling.

Developed with support from the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) and grounded in neuroscience, UDL is built on three core principles:

1. Multiple Means of Representation — presenting information through varied modalities: text, audio, video, and interactive formats.
2. Multiple Means of Action and Expression — allowing learners to demonstrate knowledge in ways that suit their strengths: written, oral, visual, kinesthetic.
3. Multiple Means of Engagement — recognizing that motivation and context vary and designing instruction to accommodate diverse interests and challenges.

UDL essentially operationalizes what multimodal VARK design would look like at the curriculum level — but without requiring that individual learners be assigned to categories. Most contemporary instructional design frameworks, including those used in higher education and corporate training, now incorporate UDL principles.

Frequently Asked Questions About VARK Learning Styles

1. What does VARK stand for?

VARK is an acronym for Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic — the four sensory preference categories in the model developed by Neil Fleming in 1987.

2. Is there a free VARK test I can take?

Yes. The official 16-question VARK Questionnaire is freely available at vark-learn.com. It takes approximately five minutes to complete and provides a personalized results page with recommended study strategies.

3. Are VARK learning styles scientifically proven?

VARK is empirically supported as a measurement of stated preferences — meaning people genuinely do report different preferences for receiving information. However, the meshing hypothesis — the idea that matching instruction to style improves outcomes — has not been reliably confirmed by experimental research. This distinction is important: VARK describes preferences, not fixed neurological types, and its value lies in promoting metacognitive reflection rather than prescribing how content must be delivered.

4. What is the most common VARK learning style?

No single modality consistently emerges as most common across populations. Research suggests multimodal profiles are the most common outcome of the VARK Questionnaire, with 50-70% of respondents scoring comparably across two or more modalities. Among unimodal learners, Kinesthetic and Read/Write preferences are frequently cited as most prevalent in Western educational contexts, though this varies by discipline and age group.

5. Can your VARK learning style change over time?

Yes. Fleming explicitly acknowledges that VARK preferences are not fixed traits. They can shift as a result of educational experiences, life events, professional development, and changing contexts. A student who scores strongly Aural in early schooling may develop a stronger Read/Write preference after years of academic study. Re-taking the questionnaire after a major life transition can yield meaningfully different results.

6. How should teachers use VARK in the classroom?

The most defensible use is not to categorize students and deliver tailored instruction to each group — the evidence for that approach is limited. Instead, teachers can use VARK to: design activities that incorporate multiple modalities, help students build metacognitive awareness about their own study habits, introduce a range of assessment formats, and start a productive conversation about learning differences. Presenting the same content through multiple modalities (multimodal instruction) benefits virtually all students.

7. What is a multimodal learner?

A multimodal learner is someone who scores comparably across two or more VARK modalities. Rather than having a single dominant preference, they draw flexibly on multiple strategies. Fleming describes them as learners who either context-switch (choosing the best modality for each situation) or synthesize (using multiple modalities simultaneously for deeper processing). Most people fall into this category.

8. Is VARK the same as Multiple Intelligences?

No. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory, developed at Harvard University in 1983, identifies seven to nine types of intelligence including linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and existential. Multiple Intelligences is broader in scope and focuses on cognitive abilities, while VARK focuses specifically on sensory preferences for information processing. Both models have generated significant educational debate about their empirical foundations.

9. Why do so many educators still use VARK despite the criticism?

Several factors contribute to VARK’s persistence: its intuitive appeal and face validity (students recognize themselves in the descriptions), the practical study strategies it provides, its utility as a starting point for metacognitive conversations, its free accessibility, and the significant gap between academic research findings and practitioner awareness. Many educators also distinguish between VARK as a prescriptive matching tool (questionable) and VARK as a reflective framework (more defensible).

10. What are better alternatives to VARK for instructional design?

Evidence-based alternatives include: Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which provides a curriculum-level framework for diverse learners; Cognitive Load Theory, which offers guidance on managing information complexity in instruction; the multimedia principle from cognitive psychologist Richard Mayer, which shows that combining verbal and visual representations improves learning for most people; and discipline-specific pedagogy, which tailors strategies to the particular demands of each field of study.

Who Uses VARK and Why

VARK content dominates search results because it addresses a wide range of very specific, very real problems that students, teachers, parents, and professionals face. Here is a breakdown of the core user problems that VARK resources help solve:

User Type	Problem Being Solved	How VARK Helps
Students (school/university)	“I study hard but still fail exams — am I studying wrong?”	Identifies preferred modality and suggests targeted study strategies to replace ineffective habits
Adult learners / self-studiers	“I can’t concentrate when I read textbooks — what should I do instead?”	Validates non-reading preferences and provides legitimate alternative strategies
Teachers / professors	“My students have very different needs — how do I differentiate?”	Provides a vocabulary and framework for discussing and accommodating learning diversity
Parents	“My child won’t sit still to study — does this mean they’re failing?”	Identifies Kinesthetic preference and suggests active learning alternatives
Corporate L&D professionals	“Our training completion rates are low and retention is poor”	Informs multimodal training design that increases engagement across diverse teams
Academic researchers	“Is VARK valid? Should we be teaching with it?”	Provides a starting point for empirical investigation and methodological critique
Career changers / upskilling professionals	“I haven’t studied in 20 years — how do I learn effectively now?”	Reintroduces metacognitive strategy tools appropriate for adult learners

Key People, Organizations, and Resources in the VARK Space

Key People

• Neil Fleming (New Zealand) — Creator of the VARK model (1987). Former inspector of schools and university teacher at Lincoln University, New Zealand. Maintains vark-learn.com.
• Colleen Mills — Co-authored the original 1992 VARK paper with Fleming.
• Howard Gardner (Harvard University) — Developed the Multiple Intelligences theory, a frequently compared alternative framework.
• Daniel Willingham (University of Virginia) — Cognitive psychologist and critic of learning styles; author of “Why Don’t Students Like School?”
• Nancy Chick (formerly Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching) — Authored widely cited critiques of learning styles in higher education.
• Phil Newton (Swansea University Medical School) — Author of the 2015 systematic review finding minimal support for learning styles in higher education.
• Harold Pashler et al. — Authors of the landmark 2008 systematic review in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
• Richard Felder (NC State University) — Developed the Felder-Silverman Learning Styles Model for engineering education; has offered nuanced defenses of learning style frameworks.
• Amber Husmann & Polly O’Loughlin (Indiana University) — Authors of the 2019 anatomy study examining VARK alignment and academic outcomes.

Key Organizations and Resources

• vark-learn.com — Official VARK website. Free questionnaire, results, study strategy guides.
• Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching — Publishes accessible critiques and analyses of learning styles research.
• CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology) — Developed the UDL framework (udlguidelines.cast.org).
• Psychological Science in the Public Interest — Published Pashler et al.’s (2008) landmark critical review.
• Scientific American — Published Willingham’s widely read critique of learning styles.
• Indiana University — Site of the Husmann & O’Loughlin (2019) anatomy VARK alignment study.
• Swansea University Medical School — Phil Newton’s institutional base for learning styles research.

Technical Terms Glossary

Term	Definition
VARK	Acronym for Visual, Aural, Read/Write, Kinesthetic — the four modality preferences in Fleming’s model
Meshing Hypothesis	The theory that learning outcomes improve when instructional methods are matched to a learner’s style preference
Multimodal	Having comparable preferences across two or more VARK modalities
Unimodal / Bimodal / Trimodal	Having a single / dual / triple dominant VARK preference
Sensory Modalities	The channels through which information is received and processed (visual, auditory, read/write, kinesthetic)
Neuromyth	A scientifically unsupported popular belief about how the brain works — how some critics characterize learning styles
Metacognition	Awareness and regulation of one’s own thinking and learning processes
Differentiated Instruction	Teaching tailored to the varied needs, strengths, and preferences of individual students
UDL (Universal Design for Learning)	An evidence-based curriculum framework presenting content through multiple means of representation, action, and engagement
Multimedia Principle	The cognitive science finding (Mayer) that people learn better with text combined with relevant visuals than text alone
Cognitive Load Theory	The theory that working memory has limited capacity and instruction should manage complexity accordingly
Expertise Reversal Effect	The finding that instructional methods effective for novices may be less effective for experts and vice versa
Sketchnotes	A visual note-taking method combining text, symbols, and illustrations — effective for Visual learners
Blended Learning	A learning approach combining in-person and digital instruction
GPA (Grade Point Average)	Academic achievement metric used to measure outcomes in VARK alignment studies
L&D (Learning and Development)	Corporate function responsible for employee training and skills development

Conclusion: Using VARK Wisely in 2026

The VARK model has endured for nearly four decades because it addresses a real and universal human experience: we all know, on some level, that we learn differently from one another, and we want frameworks that help us understand and leverage those differences.

The evidence reviewed in this guide suggests the following balanced conclusions. First, VARK preferences are real and meaningful — most people do have genuine sensory preferences for receiving and processing information, and the strategies associated with each modality are practical and valuable. Second, the meshing hypothesis — that rigidly matching instructional format to individual VARK type improves outcomes — lacks robust experimental support and should not drive high-stakes instructional design decisions.

Third, multimodal instruction consistently outperforms single-modality instruction for most learners, which aligns with both VARK’s practical guidance and the UDL framework. Fourth, VARK’s greatest value may be as a metacognitive tool: a prompt for students and educators to reflect on how they engage with information and to experiment with a wider range of strategies.

In short: use VARK as a mirror, not a mold. Let it start a conversation about learning strategies, encourage experimentation, and inform the design of diverse, engaging instruction. But hold it lightly — the science of learning is more complex than any four-letter acronym can fully capture.

Bottom Line for Educators Design instruction that is inherently multimodal. Present new concepts visually, discuss them verbally, provide written summaries, and offer hands-on application. This approach serves all VARK profiles simultaneously and aligns with both the practical recommendations of the VARK model and the evidence base of Universal Design for Learning.

References and Further Reading

1. Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137–155. The original paper is a published print journal not freely hosted, but the official VARK site and all related materials are at: https://vark-learn.com

---

2. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x Full PDF (UCLA Bjork Lab): https://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/07/Pashler_McDaniel_Rohrer_Bjork_2009_PSPI.pdf JSTOR stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20697325

---

3. Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19. DOI: 10.1002/ase.1777 PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29533532/ Wiley (publisher): https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ase.1777 ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323756779

---

4. Newton, P. M. (2015). The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1908. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908 Full open-access text (Frontiers): https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908/full PubMed Central (free full text): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4678182/

---

5. Willingham, D. T. (2018). Ask the cognitive scientist: Learning styles. Scientific American Scientific American — “Is Teaching to a Student’s Learning Style a Bogus Idea?”: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-teaching-to-a-students-learning-style-a-bogus-idea/ Scientific American — “The Problem with Learning Styles”: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-learning-styles/ Scientific American Blog — “Enough with the Learning Styles Already!”: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/enough-with-the-learning-styles-already/

---

6. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London. ResearchGate (full PDF available): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232929341_Learning_styles_and_pedagogy_in_post_16_education_a_critical_and_systematic_review VOCEDplus record: https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:13692

---

7. Felder, R. M. (2010). Are learning styles invalid? (Hint: No!) On-Course Newsletter, September 27, 2010. Full PDF (NC State Engineering): https://engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/10S5mLkGElsN8NTsYgOe_f0taEdlSpbJD/2010-LS_Validity(On-Course).pdf ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290998143_ARE_LEARNING_STYLES_INVALID_HINT_NO

---

8. CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. Official UDL Guidelines: https://udlguidelines.cast.org

---

9. Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. VARK-Learn, Christchurch, New Zealand. VARK official website: https://vark-learn.com VARK Questionnaire (free): https://vark-learn.com/the-vark-questionnaire/

---

10. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books. The book is a commercial publication; it is not freely available online, but the authoritative resource on Multiple Intelligences is Gardner’s own site: Howard Gardner’s MI resources: https://howardgardner.com/multiple-intelligences/ Amazon listing: https://www.amazon.com/Frames-Mind-Theory-Multiple-Intelligences/dp/0465024335