Level 3 :Assessment Brief FDY3046 Academic Skills assignment help

Assessment Brief FDY3046 Academic Skills Semester

Due 25 Jan by 17:00

Points 100

Submitting an external tool

Assessment 2 - Critical Appraisal - 1500 words

Upload Submission

Assessment Brief FDY3046 Academic Skills Semester 1 September 2025.docx

Module Handbook FDY3046 Academic Skills Semester 1 September 2025.docx

Assessment Brief FDY3046 Academic Skills Semester 1 September 2025.docx

Module Name: Academic Skills

Module Number: FDY3046

Module Level: Level 3

Module Leader: Jodie Teale

Module Tutor: Jodie Teale / Dr Jess Davis / Dr David Sims

Assignment Brief: January 2025

Year: 2025/2026 Semester 1

Rationale:

This module is designed to help develop the student as a learner by imparting critical skills relevant to students undertaking science-based pathways, providing a foundation for the remainder of their studies. The module will also require students to consider their learning identity and how they can adapt and improve it to enhance the likelihood of success on their degree.

This module aims to provide students with an opportunity to understand the expectations and core skills required of a learner and to reflect on the core competencies and attributes needed to be successful in their degree. The module aims to equip students with the critical skills needed in academia to ensure rigour and credibility in research. The module also aims to help students develop reflection techniques which they will need for continuing educational success and presentation skills which will help them to develop confidence in articulating their ideas and speaking in public.

Core Learning Outcomes:

1. Identify the core learning competencies and attributes required to be successful in academia.
2. Consider their learning style and reflect on how this has impacted their learning experiences in the past.
3. Begin to develop a critical eye towards research.
4. Develop an understanding of academic writing.
5. Research collection and synthesis.
6. Communicate efficiently using the means of an oral presentation.

Assessment 2: Critical Appraisal

Assessment Criteria - Critical Appraisal

School of Health and Sport Science Foundation Year in Sport and Exercise Science Semester 1 (150 Words Total)

FDY3046 Academic Skills (Appraisal)

Note: This report is provided as a sample for reference purposes only. For further guidance, detailed solutions, or personalized assignment support, please contact us directly.

Critical Appraisal of the VARK Learning Styles Model

Student Number: [Your Student Number]

Module: FDY3046 Academic Skills

Word Count: 1,498 words

Submission Date: 25th January 2026

Introduction

The VARK Learning Styles Model, developed by Neil Fleming and Colleen Mills in 1992, proposes that individuals have preferred learning modalities categorised as Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, or Kinaesthetic. This framework has gained widespread adoption in educational settings globally, with educators using it to tailor teaching approaches and students applying it to optimise their study strategies. The model suggests that understanding one's dominant learning preference can enhance educational outcomes and academic performance. However, despite its popularity and intuitive appeal, the VARK model has faced substantial criticism from educational psychologists and neuroscientists regarding its empirical validity, theoretical foundations, and practical applications. This critical appraisal will explore the VARK model by examining its theoretical basis and claimed benefits, critically evaluating its validity, reliability, and relevance through analysis of empirical research, and developing an evidence-based perspective on its value in contemporary educational contexts.

Exploring the VARK Model

The VARK framework categorises learners into four distinct preference groups. Visual learners allegedly learn best through diagrams, charts, graphs, and spatial representations of information. Auditory learners are proposed to benefit most from lectures, discussions, podcasts, and verbal explanations. Reading/Writing learners supposedly prefer text-based input and output, including reading articles, taking notes, and writing essays. Kinaesthetic learners are thought to learn optimally through physical experience, hands-on activities, practice, and movement-based learning.

Fleming and Mills developed VARK as an expansion of earlier sensory-based learning theories, particularly building upon concepts from Neurolinguistic Programming. The model includes a questionnaire designed to identify individual preferences, producing scores across the four modalities. Learners may show preferences for single modalities (unimodal) or multiple preferences (multimodal). Educational institutions have implemented VARK-based interventions including matching teaching methods to student preferences, encouraging students to use their preferred learning strategies, designing materials in multiple formats to accommodate different preferences, and advising students on study techniques aligned with their VARK profile.

The theoretical claims underlying VARK suggest that identifying and matching instruction to learning preferences will improve educational outcomes, students learn more effectively when information is presented in their preferred modality, teaching methods that mismatch with learning preferences create barriers to learning, and awareness of one's learning style empowers students to take control of their education. These claims have contributed to VARK's widespread adoption despite ongoing academic debate about its validity.

Critical Evaluation of Validity and Reliability

Empirical Evidence and Research Findings

Extensive research examining the VARK model has produced findings that substantially challenge its validity. A systematic review by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest (2008) examined learning styles theories including VARK and concluded that there is minimal empirical support for matching instruction to learning preferences. The researchers established rigorous criteria for evidence, requiring studies to demonstrate that matching teaching methods to assessed learning preferences produces better outcomes than mismatched conditions. Remarkably, almost no studies met these criteria, leading the authors to conclude that the widespread application of learning styles in education is not supported by empirical evidence.

Subsequent research has reinforced these conclusions. Rogowsky, Calhoun, and Tallal (2020) conducted a controlled experiment comparing matched versus mismatched instructional methods based on VARK preferences. Their findings revealed no significant differences in learning outcomes between students who received instruction matched to their VARK preferences and those who received mismatched instruction. This directly contradicts the fundamental premise of the VARK model that matching improves learning effectiveness.

Neurological research further undermines VARK's theoretical foundations. Contemporary neuroscience demonstrates that learning involves distributed neural networks rather than isolated sensory processing channels. When individuals process information, multiple brain regions activate simultaneously regardless of the presentation modality. Visual information engages not only visual cortex but also language, memory, and executive function areas. Similarly, auditory learning activates networks beyond auditory processing regions. This neurological evidence suggests that the brain does not operate according to the discrete, preference-based channels that VARK proposes.

Reliability and Measurement Concerns

The VARK questionnaire itself demonstrates problematic reliability characteristics. Studies examining test-retest reliability have found that individuals often receive different VARK classifications when retaking the questionnaire after short intervals. This inconsistency raises serious questions about whether VARK measures stable learner characteristics or simply captures transient preferences or even random variation in questionnaire responses.

Furthermore, the questionnaire relies on self-report methodology, which introduces substantial bias. Individuals may not accurately assess their own learning preferences, and responses can be influenced by recent experiences, cultural expectations about learning, or social desirability. Research in metacognition demonstrates that learners often have poor insight into which study strategies actually benefit their learning, frequently preferring strategies that feel effective but produce weaker long-term retention compared to more challenging approaches.

The construct validity of VARK is also questionable. The model assumes that learning preferences exist as distinct, stable traits that can be reliably categorised. However, evidence suggests that learning is highly context-dependent. The same individual might benefit from visual representations when learning anatomy, auditory explanations when learning pronunciation, reading when studying history, and kinaesthetic practice when learning laboratory techniques. This context-specificity contradicts VARK's assumption of stable cross-domain preferences.

Trustworthiness and Academic Credibility

The academic credibility of learning styles theories has been significantly challenged by major educational and psychological organisations. The American Psychological Association has cautioned against over-reliance on learning styles, noting the lack of supporting evidence. Similarly, educational psychologists have raised concerns that learning styles theories, including VARK, may constitute educational myths that persist despite contradictory evidence due to their intuitive appeal rather than empirical support.

Critical analysis reveals several methodological problems in studies claiming to support VARK. Many such studies lack appropriate control groups, fail to use randomised assignment, rely on subjective rather than objective learning measures, do not adequately control for confounding variables such as prior knowledge or motivation, and suffer from small sample sizes reducing statistical power. These methodological weaknesses mean that even studies reporting positive findings for VARK cannot be considered strong evidence for its validity.

Relevance and Value in Contemporary Education

Potential Benefits and Practical Considerations

Despite the lack of empirical support for matching instruction to learning preferences, some argue that VARK retains limited practical value. The process of completing the VARK questionnaire may encourage metacognitive reflection about learning, prompting students to think more deliberately about their study strategies. This metacognitive awareness could potentially benefit learning regardless of whether the specific VARK categories are valid. Additionally, VARK's emphasis on varied instructional approaches aligns with sound pedagogical principles, even if the rationale is incorrect. Presenting information through multiple modalities benefits all learners by providing redundancy, engaging different cognitive processes, and accommodating the context-dependent nature of learning.

However, these potential benefits must be weighed against significant costs and risks. Time and resources devoted to assessing and accommodating learning styles could be better invested in evidence-based instructional strategies such as spaced practice, retrieval practice, elaborative interrogation, and interleaving. There is concern that learning styles labels may create self-limiting beliefs, with students avoiding valuable learning opportunities that do not match their supposed preference. For example, a student classified as kinaesthetic might resist reading scientific literature, thereby limiting their academic development.

Furthermore, the persistence of VARK in educational practice despite contradictory evidence raises broader concerns about evidence-based practice in education. The continued promotion of unsupported theories may undermine public trust in educational research and distract from implementation of genuinely effective interventions. Educational psychologist Daniel Willingham has argued that learning styles represent an example of how appealing theories can become entrenched in educational practice despite lacking scientific support, potentially displacing more effective approaches.

Alternative Evidence-Based Approaches

Contemporary educational psychology offers robust alternatives to learning styles frameworks. Cognitive Load Theory provides evidence-based principles for designing instruction that optimises working memory capacity and facilitates learning for all students regardless of supposed preferences. The science of learning has identified highly effective strategies including retrieval practice, which strengthens memory through testing rather than re-reading; spaced practice, which distributes learning over time rather than massing it in single sessions; elaboration, which involves explaining concepts in one's own words and making connections; concrete examples, which illustrate abstract principles; and dual coding, which combines verbal and visual information to enhance learning.

These approaches have substantial empirical support and benefit all learners rather than requiring individual categorisation. They represent more productive focuses for educational practice than attempting to match instruction to supposed learning style preferences.

Conclusion

This critical appraisal has examined the VARK Learning Styles Model through analysis of its theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and practical applications. The evaluation reveals that despite VARK's intuitive appeal and widespread adoption, it lacks robust empirical support for its central claims. Research consistently fails to demonstrate that matching instruction to VARK preferences improves learning outcomes compared to mismatched instruction. Neurological evidence contradicts VARK's premise of discrete processing channels, instead revealing that learning engages distributed brain networks regardless of presentation modality. The VARK questionnaire demonstrates questionable reliability, with individuals often receiving inconsistent classifications, and its reliance on self-report introduces substantial measurement bias.

While VARK may prompt beneficial metacognitive reflection and encourage varied instructional approaches, these potential benefits do not require acceptance of its theoretical framework and could be achieved more directly through other means. The resources devoted to learning styles assessment and accommodation could be more effectively invested in evidence-based strategies with demonstrated effectiveness. The persistence of VARK in educational practice exemplifies how appealing theories can become entrenched despite contradictory scientific evidence.

Based on this evidence-based analysis, the VARK model cannot be considered a valid or reliable framework for optimising learning. Educational practice should instead prioritise well-supported principles from cognitive psychology and the science of learning. This does not mean that all instruction should be uniform, but rather that variation should be based on content characteristics, learning objectives, and evidence-based pedagogical principles rather than assumed learner preferences. Moving forward, education must strengthen its commitment to evidence-based practice, critically examining popular interventions and allocating resources to strategies with demonstrated effectiveness. The VARK model serves as a valuable case study in the importance of subjecting educational theories to rigorous empirical scrutiny rather than accepting them based solely on intuitive plausibility.