One of the most valuable outcomes of completing the VARK Questionnaire is not the result itself, but the reflection that follows. Thinking about how you learn, which strategies have worked for you in the past, and what you might try next is an example of metacognition—being aware of and thinking about your own learning.
Several recent studies have explored connections between VARK, learning strategies, and metacognition. Although they were conducted in different educational settings and had different aims, they highlight an important theme: learners do not always have an accurate understanding of how they learn, and developing that awareness may be an important step toward becoming a more effective learner.
Are Learners Good Judges of Their Own Learning Preferences?
Lampadan and Laung’s 2025 study of secondary school students in Malaysia examined the relationship between students’ perceived VARK preferences and their actual VARK results.
The researchers found that many students showed some alignment between what they believed their preferences were and what their VARK results indicated. However, the alignment was only partial. Agreement was stronger for Visual and Aural preferences than for Read/write and Kinesthetic preferences.
Perhaps most interestingly, more than 10% of participants showed no alignment at all between their perceived preferences and their VARK results. The authors suggested that this reflected lower levels of metacognitive awareness among some students.
This finding is a useful reminder that self-awareness is not automatic. Learners often make assumptions about how they learn best, but those assumptions may not always be accurate. One value of the VARK Questionnaire is that it provides a structured opportunity to reflect on learning experiences and compare those experiences with the questionnaire results.
The researchers concluded that future work should explore ways to improve metacognitive thinking and self-regulation among students, potentially using frameworks such as VARK to support that process.
Self-awareness about how you learn isn’t automatic — a structured tool like VARK can reveal the gap between what you assume and what’s actually true.
Can Reflection on Learning Improve Achievement?
A 2025 study by Cheshmazar, Talepasand and Sotodeh compared two different approaches to improving science achievement: six hours of instruction based on VARK learning preferences and nine hours of training in metacognitive strategies.
The results showed that both approaches had a positive impact on students’ science achievement, with no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two interventions. In other words, neither approach was clearly superior to the other.
This finding is noteworthy because it suggests that helping students think more deliberately about learning—whether through considering their VARK preferences or through explicit metacognitive strategy training—has benefits.
The study does not tell us that one approach should replace the other. Instead, it suggests that both can encourage learners to become more intentional about how they study and engage with new material.
Thinking deliberately about how you learn helps — whether that reflection comes through VARK or through explicit metacognitive training, both beat doing neither.
Learning Preferences and Approaches to Study
A third recent study by Özeke, Budakoğlu, Coşkun, Ö. et al. investigated relationships between learning preferences and approaches to studying among medical students.
Educational researchers often describe three broad approaches to learning:
Deep learning involves seeking to understand ideas and concepts. Learners using a deep approach look for meaning, connect new information to existing knowledge, question assumptions, and apply what they have learned in different contexts.
Strategic learning focuses on achieving the best possible results. Strategic learners are organised, manage their time effectively, pay attention to assessment requirements, and select study methods that will help them perform well.
Surface learning is characterised by memorising information with little attempt to understand underlying concepts. Learners using a surface approach often focus on reproducing facts for tests or assignments and may struggle to apply knowledge in unfamiliar situations.
Most people use a combination of these approaches at different times, but deep and strategic approaches are generally associated with more successful learning outcomes than a predominantly surface approach.
The researchers reported that multimodal learners were more likely to adopt deep approaches to learning and less likely to adopt strategic approaches. Kinesthetic learners also showed a positive association with deep learning, while Read/write learners were more closely associated with strategic learning approaches.
These findings are interesting, but they should be interpreted cautiously. The study did not use VARK results generated through the standard VARK scoring algorithm. The distribution of reported learning preferences suggests that many participants may have been classified differently than they would have been if the VARK algorithm had been applied. This raises questions about the validity of the preference categories used in the study and therefore about the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn.
Nevertheless, the study highlights an interesting issue: the relationship between learning preferences and learning approaches.
For VARK users, the key lesson is not that certain preferences are inherently better than others. Rather, it is worth reflecting on whether your preferred ways of learning are helping you engage deeply with material.
If your study habits involve mainly memorising facts without making connections, applying ideas, or testing understanding, you may be relying on a surface approach to learning. The challenge is not to abandon your preferred modalities, but to use them more effectively.
For example:
- A learner with a strong Visual preference might move beyond simply looking at diagrams and instead create concept maps that show relationships between ideas.
- A learner with an Aural preference might discuss concepts, explain them to others, or participate in debates.
- A learner with a Read/write preference might compare sources, summarise ideas in their own words, or develop structured notes that highlight connections.
- A learner with a Kinesthetic preference might use case studies, simulations, practical examples, or real-world applications to deepen understanding.
Your preferred modality isn’t the deciding factor in how well you learn — what matters is whether you’re using it to engage deeply, not just to memorize.
What Can We Learn from These Studies?
Taken together, these studies point to the same conclusion: learners aren’t always the best judges of how they learn, and reflection helps close that gap.
Learning preferences work best as a starting point for that reflection, not a label to settle into. The real question isn’t “What is my VARK preference?” It’s “How am I using what I know about myself to become a more effective learner?”
References
Lampadan, N., & Laung, H. D. M. (2025). Examining actual and perceived VARK learning preferences among secondary students in Malaysia. Human Behavior, Development and Society, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.62370/hbds.v26i3.281708
Cheshmazar, N., Telepasand, S., & SotodehAsl, N. (2025). The efficacy of teaching VARK’s cognitive learning styles and metacognitive strategies on achievement of students in the subject of science. Journal of Psychological Science, 24(152), 153–169. https://psychologicalscience.ir/browse.php?a_id=2577&sid=1&slc_lang=en
Özeke, V., Budakoğlu, I. İ., Coşkun, Ö., & Akçapınar, G. (2025). Learning styles or study approaches in medical schools: A study of a pebble thrown into the water. BMC Medical Education, 25, 1240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07818-z
