I remember when I first dipped my toe into the world of learning experience design, I felt completely out of depth. However, somewhere in the corner of my mind, I’d stored a faint memory of the VARK theory—something I’d read, somewhere, sometime. And with a sort of misplaced confidence, I had this stubborn need to bring it up in a conversation that wasn’t remotely connected to the topic.
But… what exactly is VARK?
The VARK learning styles theory is a model that believes learners have a preferred way of absorbing and processing information. The acronym expands into:
👀 Visual learners who learn through diagrams, charts, and visualisations.
🗣️ Auditory learners who grasp concepts better through listening—lectures, discussions, or verbal repetition.
✍🏽 Reading/Writing learners who excel with text-based materials like notes and lists.
🤚🏽 Kinaesthetic learners who need to “learn by doing,” preferring hands-on activities or movement to process information.
Reasonable, right? I thought so too and I am smug alright, have always been. So, while I did flaunt the one feather I had in my cap — I wasn’t very shocked (although a little pinched to be honest) to know that the theory, once lauded as revolutionary, is now widely dismissed as unreliable in improving learning outcomes.
I would have known this had I researched about it but I never thought about it— why — because it made perfect sense to me.
We all have preferences. I assumed my love of books meant I must be a Reading/Writing learner. The theory simply made sense.
But, as you know, my myth was busted (hehe, look at me using learning science terms)! And this actually made me more curious to know as much as I could about the VARK model and all the drama around it.
Let’s begin from the beginning…
Neil Fleming, a school inspector from New Zealand observed patterns in how students seemed to learn. Without any formal training in psychology, Fleming drew his conclusions from real-world observations having spent decades watching students and teachers interact in various schools. He noticed that students seemed to have distinct preferences for absorbing information while many teaching methods cater to only one type of learner, understanding and addressing these different learning preferences could help teachers engage students more effectively.
Interestingly, there was already an existing model called VAK, introduced by Walter Burke Barbe. It was strikingly similar to Fleming’s framework—except for Fleming’s addition of the Reading/Writing modality and the introduction of a questionnaire to identify learning styles. Though Fleming acknowledged that his work built on earlier theories, he did not explicitly credit Barbe in his publications.
This further made me question what contributed to the immense popularity of the VARK model by Fleming if a similar model hadn’t gotten similar recognition earlier.
Why was VARK an immediate hit?
Despite its overlap with prior models, Fleming’s VARK theory achieved widespread recognition, thanks to a combination of factors:
✼ Simplicity : It provided a simple, memorable way to talk about learning preferences. Educators and trainers found it easy to incorporate, and students could quickly identify with one or more categories.
✼ Timing : Introduced in the late 1980s, VARK arrived at a time when education was undergoing a significant shift toward individualised approaches reflecting broader cultural, technological and pedagogical changes. The focus moved from one-size-fits-all methods to personalised and student centred learning.
✼ Accessible: Fleming took the foundational ideas and created the VARK Questionnaire (add link). It was a practical tool that anyone could use to identify their learning preferences.
✼ Reading/ Writing : Fleming observed that many students had a strong preference for information presented in written form. By adding this category adjustment made the model feel more comprehensive and better aligned with classroom realities.
While Fleming didn’t invent the idea of learning styles, his model became synonymous with it because he distilled these ideas in a way that was accessible, actionable, and immediately useful in educational settings.
So, then, where did it go wrong?
For all its appeal, the VARK theory eventually faced substantial criticism. Researchers identified some key flaws:
⇥ Preference vs. Effectiveness: There is a critical distinction between preference and effectiveness. Just because a student prefers a style doesn’t mean it’s the most effective way for them to learn.
⇥ No Empirical Evidence: Studies repeatedly show no measurable improvement in learning outcomes when teaching methods are aligned with supposed learning styles.
⇥ Neuromyths: The model reinforces oversimplified ideas about how the brain learns, However, neuroscientists argue that the brain processes information through interconnected networks, making multisensory learning more effective than sticking to a single “channel”.
⇥ Oversimplification: By categorising learners into distinct groups, this theory can lead to oversimplification, where people may come to see themselves as only one type of learner limiting their openness to other learning strategies that may be beneficial for them.
⇥ Content over Preference: Research suggests that effective learning strategies are often task-dependent, and educators should focus on the demands of the content rather than a presumed learning style propagated by this theory.
⇥ Over-Emphasis on Differences: This theory places too much emphasis on individual differences and ignores commonalities in how the brain learns. Cognitive psychology suggests that most people benefit from similar foundational strategies.
Reading about this theory led me to question the popularity of the VARK theory and while I understood its popularity from a surface level, I wanted to understand why certain information is so much easier for us to accept. Especially in relation to the VARK model, how does the human mind process information?
Why do we gravitate toward models like VARK?
Even after being debunked, the VARK theory remains a familiar name in education circles. Why? Because models like these tap into some deep-seated human tendencies:
We find comfort in simple, actionable models:
We often gravitate toward theories that are straightforward and easy to apply, especially in complex areas like learning. This appeals to our desire for quick, easy-to-grasp explanations that seem practical and actionable. Its simplicity makes it an easy model to remember in comparison to more complex theories that may be harder to understand or too abstract for everyday use.
We have a need for self discovery and desire to be unique
People have a strong interest in self-discovery, and models that offer a way to understand oneself better, appeals to our curiosity about who we are and how we learn. Categorisation models tap into our need to feel unique and understood, offering a personalised learning identity.
We like to also belong to an identifiable group
While we want to be unique we also frequently find comfort in labels. They offer a sense of identity within a group as well as clarity. This brings about a sense of belonging with folks having similar preferences and challenges as you.
We are fascinated by the brain
People are drawn to explanations that seem scientific, especially those that align with familiar categories. Concepts that seem rooted in neuroscience—even if they oversimplify the science—often gain widespread acceptance because they offer a feeling of credibility.
We have a need to control and predict
There is a universal human desire for predictability and control, especially in education. By categorising learners, one feels that they can “unlock” an optimal learning pathway, which seems more achievable than attempting to tackle learning in all its complexity.
We have a confirmation bias that gets triggered with certain theories
From a very young age, humans have experiences that shape their understanding of how they learn and perceive the world. Most people already have an inherent belief that learning is personal and individualised—that everyone has their own “best way” of learning. These beliefs, which many people carry from childhood experiences, find validation in a model like VARK. This is also known as the confirmation bias which refers to a tendency to search for, interpret, or remember information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs.
Time to Reflect…
While this research was extremely helpful for me to understand and broaden my knowledge about the VARK model, it made me more curious about how we process knowledge—not just academically, but psychologically.
In some ways, I figured that our fascination with learning styles isn’t just about education; it’s about understanding ourselves. It's why we take these Buzzfeed quizzes, these many personality quizzes and even obsessively indulge in astrology (cue: me).
We seem to be drawn to the idea of personalisation, of uncovering new aspects of ourselves and especially finding security and relief in an external confirmation of our own sense of self.
I don’t know where my journey of learning about learning science and learning experience design takes me but I find it so valuable to be able to find pieces to connect outside of the learning and see how everything around me is somehow connected. I am starting to see and that feels like a good place to begin!
un:fold is a space where folks from fold labs write about learning, behaviour, systems, tech, equity and whatever else is occupying our mind.
 | A guest post by
|
This article was lucidly written and very enjoyable to read.