If a learner tells you “I’m a visual learner,” you have a choice. You can believe them, redesign every session around diagrams, and walk away feeling helpful. Or you can understand what the research actually says about VARK and adult learning styles, and make a more useful call. This guide covers the VARK model, the evidence for and against it, and how TAE40122 trainers should actually apply it in the classroom.
What is the VARK learning styles model?
VARK is a model of learning preferences developed by New Zealand educator Neil Fleming in 1987. It sorts learners into four modalities: Visual (diagrams, maps, charts), Auditory (talking and listening), Reading/writing (text), and Kinaesthetic (hands-on practice and movement). Learners can be single-preference or multimodal, holding two or more modalities equally.
VARK is a preference model, not a capacity model. It describes how a learner prefers information to be presented, not what they can or cannot learn. Fleming always argued that VARK should prompt learners to use strategies aligned with their preferences, not constrain what they are taught. The VARK questionnaire is free online and produces a profile in about five minutes.
Who developed VARK and why?
Neil Fleming developed VARK while working as a schools inspector in New Zealand. He observed that some teachers were clearly brilliant to some students and confusing to others, even when delivering the same content. He proposed that individual preferences for modality could explain part of the variation and built a questionnaire to measure it.
Fleming’s original model was VAK (Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic). He added the Reading/writing modality after observing that many learners preferred text over either spoken words or diagrams. The distinction matters because a text-heavy learner and a diagram-heavy learner look similar on a VAK test but respond very differently to a textbook versus an infographic.
Does VARK actually work? What does the research say?
VARK as a preference model is well-validated. Learners genuinely do report different comfort with visual, auditory, reading and kinaesthetic modalities, and those preferences are stable over time. Where VARK runs into trouble is the “meshing hypothesis”: the idea that teaching a learner in their preferred modality actually improves their learning outcomes.
Meta-analyses by Pashler and colleagues in 2009, and again by Husmann and O’Loughlin in 2019, found very weak evidence that matching instruction to learning style improves outcomes. Learners generally perform similarly whether or not instruction matches their stated preference. The American Psychological Association concluded in 2019 that learning styles should not drive instructional design in the absence of stronger evidence.
That does not mean VARK is useless. It means the value sits in the learner, not the trainer. A learner who knows they prefer diagrams can build their own study routine around diagrams. A trainer who tries to deliver everything in diagrams to a “visual learner” is probably wasting effort.
How should VET trainers actually use VARK?
Use VARK to help learners understand their own study habits, not to segregate learners by modality. Invite a cohort to complete the VARK questionnaire, discuss the results as a group, and prompt learners to use strategies aligned with their preferences when they are studying independently. That is how Fleming originally intended the tool to work.
In delivery, use multimodal instruction as a baseline. Every session should include visuals, verbal explanation, text artefacts and hands-on practice. This is not because you are matching each learner’s preference; it is because concept variety, depth of encoding and retention improve when learners experience content through multiple channels. The adult learning principles guide covers this logic in detail.
What are the four VARK modalities in detail?
Visual (V): Prefers diagrams, charts, maps, flowcharts and symbolic representation. A visual learner studying TAE40122 will benefit from a flowchart of the assessment process, a mind map of the 12 units, or a colour-coded timeline of the VET reform history.
Auditory (A): Prefers to hear and talk through content. An auditory learner benefits from lectures, discussion, podcasts, explaining content out loud to a study partner, and listening to recorded content during commutes.
Reading/writing (R): Prefers text in all forms. A reading/writing learner benefits from reading the training package from training.gov.au directly, writing their own notes in full sentences, and using text-heavy glossaries and manuals.
Kinaesthetic (K): Prefers hands-on practice, movement, physical example and real-world application. A kinaesthetic learner benefits from role-playing an assessment, standing up to practise facilitation, and testing ideas in real workplace settings.
What is multimodality and why does it matter?
Most adult learners are multimodal, meaning they have two or more VARK preferences of similar strength. Fleming’s own data suggests that around 60 percent of adults are multimodal. Single-preference learners are in the minority, and designing a course around any single modality therefore short-changes most of your cohort.
Multimodality is also a reason multimodal teaching works even without personalising to each learner. If most learners benefit from two or three modalities, a session that uses four modalities will reach most learners through at least one comfortable channel and stretch them into another. That is what every Learn TAE session aims to do.
How does VARK show up in TAE40122 assessment?
TAE40122 does not require you to assess learners’ VARK profiles or design instruction to match. It does require you to demonstrate adult learning principles, respond to individual learner needs, and provide multimodal resources where practical. The smart framing is that VARK is one lens among several for thinking about learner variation.
In your own TAE40122 portfolio, show that you considered modality in your session plans and resources. “I provided diagrams, a brief lecture, a written summary and a role-play activity” is defensible. “I grouped learners by VARK style and taught each group differently” is not well supported by evidence and will be harder to justify at validation.
What are the limitations and criticisms of VARK?
Beyond the meshing-hypothesis issue, VARK attracts three main criticisms. First, the four modalities are a crude simplification of a very rich cognitive landscape. Second, self-report questionnaires are weak predictors of actual performance. Third, the popularity of VARK has led to widespread over-application, with some trainers and schools spending significant resources on modality matching that research does not support.
Other learning theories complement VARK usefully. Kolb’s experiential learning cycle focuses on the stages of learning rather than modality preferences. Bloom’s taxonomy addresses cognitive depth. Malcolm Knowles’ andragogy covers motivation and autonomy. A TAE40122 trainer should know all four and use them as complementary lenses rather than picking just one.
Should you ask learners about their learning style?
Yes, but not to stream them. Asking learners about their preferences at the start of a cohort invites reflection on their own study habits and opens a conversation about metacognition: thinking about how they think. That conversation is useful even if the VARK questionnaire itself is imperfect.
What to avoid: labelling learners as “a visual” or “a kinaesthetic” and letting that label drive your delivery choices. That practice is not evidence-based and risks simplifying learner identity in ways that limit growth. Adults are complex learners with preferences that shift by topic, context and prior experience. Treat VARK as a conversation starter, not a classification system.
How does VARK compare to other learning theories?
VARK is a modality preference model. Kolb’s experiential cycle is a process model. Bloom’s taxonomy is a cognitive depth model. Knowles’ andragogy is a motivational and self-concept model. Mezirow’s transformative learning is a worldview-change model. Each lens answers a different question about how adults learn.
TAE40122 draws on all these theories without requiring you to master any one in depth. Your assessment portfolio should reference multiple theories appropriately: VARK for variation in delivery, Kolb for reflective practice, Bloom for assessment design, Knowles for learner engagement. Breadth beats depth for most practising trainers.
Related reading
- PCMA –The Myth of Learning Styles — and Why You Should Still Design for Them
- H. Pashler et.al. –Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
- American Psychological Association – Learning Styles – Out of Fashion
Frequently Asked Questions
Is VARK a scientifically validated theory?
VARK is validated as a model of stable self-reported preferences. It is not validated as a basis for matching instruction to improve outcomes. The most comprehensive meta-analyses have not found strong evidence that matching improves learning.
Should I take the VARK questionnaire myself?
Yes, as a teaching tool. Taking the questionnaire helps you understand the model experientially and gives you a personal example to share with learners. You can access the free VARK questionnaire at vark-learn.com.
Can I use VARK in my TAE40122 portfolio?
Yes, if you frame it accurately. Discuss VARK as a learner-directed metacognition tool and justify your delivery choices with multimodality evidence rather than single-preference matching. Your assessor will want to see accurate framing, not modality-matched streaming.
What do I do if a learner insists they are "a visual learner"?
Respect the self-identification and help them build study strategies aligned with their preference. Also encourage them to practise in their non-preferred modalities because flexibility is a career asset. Do not redesign your session around their stated preference alone.
Is VARK the same as multiple intelligences?
No. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences proposes distinct cognitive domains like linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal. VARK is about modality preference. The two models address different questions and should not be conflated.
Apply VARK and other adult learning models with TAE40122
Learn TAE (delivered in partnership with RTO 40407) delivers TAE40122 with balanced coverage of VARK, Kolb, Bloom and Knowles so you leave with a working toolkit of adult learning models. You practise multimodal facilitation in real cohort sessions. Check the next intake at https://learntae.com.au/tae40122-course-overview/
Need more information?
Call 1300 858 849.
