Profilia lets you run the VARK test with a whole class for free, with no sign-up for you or your students. You open a session in one click, you project the QR code on the board, and each student answers from the device your school allows: phone, tablet or a computer-room machine. You watch the spread of Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinesthetic profiles build up live. First names are optional, the grid only appears once 3 participants have taken part, and first names and answers are deleted after 30 days by default.
One clarification up front, because it matters when you are a teacher: VARK measures a self-reported format preference, not a way of learning better. The idea that teaching each student in their own "style" would improve learning is not backed by the research, and this page suggests a different use, detailed below.
How it works
1. You open the session before the lesson. One click from the test page, no form at all. You land straight on the session screen, with the link and the QR code. No account to create, neither for you nor for the students, and no email address to ask anyone for.
2. Students answer together. Project the QR code or write the link on the board, or post it in the class's online space. To have everyone start at the same time, tick "Live workshop" when you create the session: students wait in a lobby and you start the test once the class is ready. Without this option, the session is open straight away and each student can answer at their own pace, in class or at home.
3. You project the grid. It refreshes by itself as answers come in, and can be projected as it is. Nothing to restart or reload.
What each student gets
Each student takes the full VARK test exactly as if they were doing it alone, and lands on the same complete result page: the detailed description of their profile, with no account to create and no email address to leave. They can download a PDF version, built in their own browser (nothing is sent or stored), or save the image of their result.
They then see the class's collective breakdown, with no names at all, with pointers for each profile present and questions to start the discussion. Their first name, if they entered one, is visible only to you.
What you have for the debrief
- The class grid, which updates by itself and can be projected on the board as it is.
- For each profile present in the class, pointers to discuss about materials, as hypotheses.
- Up to four questions to start the discussion, chosen from the group's actual makeup: one majority profile, two tied, one profile that is rare in the split, one profile absent from the room.
- The "first name and profile" list, visible only to you, for the students who entered a first name (the others appear as "Anonymous").
- A PDF printout of the grid from the browser, without first names, with the date.
- A 60 to 90 minute facilitation kit, opened from your session page, with the "where this profile got me wrong" exercise. It is written for a group of adults; the plan below brings it down to a one-hour lesson.
- A printable report, for the session host only, meaning you: the breakdown, a few sentences reading the group's makeup as hypotheses to discuss, one card per profile present drawn from the test's own content, the same discussion questions and, as an option, the "first name and profile" list (unticked by default, so absent from the printout).
- A button to rerun the same test with another class, without starting from scratch.
- An optional "live workshop" mode: students wait in a lobby and you start the test once the class is ready.
You can also take the test yourself, and your result counts in the grid.
What Profilia does not do: there is no spreadsheet export, no result sent to families and no grade. You prepare the debrief on the projected grid or on the printed report, with you as the interpreter.
Reading the class grid
What the collective VARK shows is not the class's level, it is the format in which each person says they prefer to receive information. A self-reported preference does not mean someone learns better through that channel (see the limits further down). The useful reading is therefore on the spread, as a starting point for a conversation about teaching materials, not on students one by one. Each reading below is a hypothesis to put to the class, not a finding.
A class spread across several profiles is a reminder that preferences vary within the same room. It is a good opportunity to ask the students which materials help them, without sorting anyone.
A class with many Kinesthetic profiles. Many say they prefer hands-on practice. A useful question: are long theoretical stretches experienced as hard going, and would a regular hands-on moment help everyone?
A class with few Read/write profiles. Few say they prefer the written word. You can ask whether the handout is actually read, and whether information people need would benefit from existing in another form too.
A strongly Visual class. Many say they prefer diagrams. A useful question: would a diagram sketched live help more than a dense slide, for the whole class and not only for the Visual profiles?
A very uniform class may reflect how the group was put together: a class recruited on a similar academic profile ends up looking alike. A useful question: how was the class put together, and what would materials designed differently bring?
For every profile present, the grid also offers pointers drawn from the test on materials, as hypotheses. They are pointers to discuss with the students who recognize themselves in them, and an extra aid is offered to the whole class: a self-reported preference does not say what makes people learn.
Plan for a one-hour lesson
A class result without a debrief is just one more picture. Here is a plan that fits in 55 minutes.
Minutes 0 to 5, the framing. State the aim: spot the different ways people learn, not sort students into boxes. Point out that everyone can learn in several ways, that the test is a conversation aid and not a verdict, and that first names are optional (a nickname works). Project the QR code.
Minutes 5 to 20, taking the test and reading alone. Each student answers on their own, then reads their own result page in silence. Ask each one to note one sentence that sounds like them and one that does not: disagreeing with the result is allowed, and useful to say out loud.
Minutes 20 to 32, the grid. Put it on screen and first ask the students what they see in it, before any interpretation. Then ask one or two of the questions from the previous section, as hypotheses to check together: majority profile, missing profile, preferences with few people behind them.
Minutes 32 to 50, the discussion. Go back to the questions suggested under the grid. Add this one: "In which recent situation did we notice that we work differently, and what did we make of it?" If time allows, ask small groups to take a recent lesson: through which different channels could it be offered to the whole class, and what would we look for to know whether it helps? The aim is not to tailor the lesson to each preference in the room: that matching hypothesis is not confirmed (see the limits below).
Minutes 50 to 55, a commitment. One concrete step for the next session: vary one resource (an extra diagram, a moment of oral exchange, a hands-on exercise) for the whole class, then ask the students what helped.
To avoid: naming out loud which student has which profile if they have not said so themselves, presenting the result as an ability ("you are visual, so you do not retain anything said out loud"), reducing a student to a single preference, forming work groups from the profiles, and using the grid to assess, grade or steer students. The first names you see on your screen are not meant to be read out loud.
When to use it
At the start of the school year, to open a discussion about the formats the class says it likes, and to explain to the students why the lessons alternate between formats.
In a study skills or tutoring session, as the starting point for a discussion about study methods. Talking about it can help a student describe how they revise, without turning it into a label.
Before building a unit of lessons, to discuss with the class which formats it finds useful, without presuming what will be enough.
Anonymity, age and data
The grid only appears once 3 participants have taken part. Below that, a distribution would give too much away about each person: in a group of two, the spread names everybody.
The first name is optional. If one is entered, only the session host, meaning you, sees it, next to the student's profile. Students only see the collective breakdown, with no names. A nickname works just as well, and without a name the result still counts in the grid. Our privacy policy states that taking part in a group session is open to all ages, and that under 15 the first name should be left blank or replaced by a pseudonym.
No account is needed, for you or for the students, and no email address is asked for. Sessions and any first names given are deleted after 30 days, automatically, unless you sign in and choose to keep the group for 12 months: students are told before they answer. There is no advertising on Profilia, and the data is not sold to anyone.
What VARK measures, and its limits
VARK measures a format preference, not an ability and not a level. It tells you the shape in which someone likes to receive information, and nothing else.
Its limitation matters and is well documented: the idea that teaching each person in their own style improves their results is not backed by the research. This is known as the matching hypothesis, and the studies that tested it seriously do not find it holds up. The detail is in our article on the VARK learning styles.
The practical consequence, and it is more useful than the myth: rather than sorting students by profile, a cautious lead is to offer the same content through several channels to the whole class, then watch what helps. It is a reasonable hypothesis to try, not an effect this test demonstrates. The grid is there to show what your usual format leaves out, never to file a student into a box, to explain a failure, or to assess or steer anyone.
For building a sequence of lessons, the guide VARK at work: training a team goes further (it is written for adults in training).
Frequently asked questions
Is the VARK test in class really free? Yes, the VARK test in class on Profilia is entirely free, with no cap on the number of sessions, no paid tier and no advertising. There is no limited trial and no feature held back behind an upgrade.
Do students need to create an account or give an email address? No. Neither the teacher nor the students need an account. You create the session and project a QR code; each student answers directly, with no sign-up and no email address.
Are students' answers anonymous? For the students, yes: they only see the collective breakdown, never who has which profile, and it only appears once 3 participants have taken part. The session host, meaning the teacher, sees each person's profile next to their first name, if one was entered. The first name is optional and a nickname is enough.
How many students are needed, at minimum and at maximum? You need 3 participants at minimum for the grid to appear, and a session accepts up to 300 people, which covers a small group just as well as a whole lecture hall.
How long is the data kept? A group session and its results are deleted automatically 30 days after it was created, first names included, or 12 months after if you chose to keep it (account required, students told before they answer). If the group is linked to your account and the grid was shown, only an anonymous summary then stays in your account, for 12 months after the group closes: how many people per profile, with no names or answers.
Can the test be given to students under 15? Taking part in a group session is open to all ages, since it asks for no email address and no identity. Under 15, the first name should be left blank or replaced by a pseudonym. Our questionnaire has not been validated with students: present it as a set of questions to get people talking, not as a measurement.
Should a lesson be adapted to the class's dominant style? No, and that is the most common misreading. That teaching in each person's preferred style improves results has not been shown by the available research. A more cautious lead is to put the same idea across through several channels for the whole class, then watch what helps.
Is VARK scientifically validated? No. Our test has no published validation. It describes a stated preference, and the matching hypothesis behind its most common pedagogical use is not supported by the evidence. It remains useful as a prompt for discussing study methods, as long as it is not treated as a diagnosis.