This reads current desire for a format, not measured learning effectiveness.
This part observes your current desire for ordinary examples, reversible small trials or sample material. It measures neither movement skill, practical talent, attention nor career fit, and does not interpret a preference for practice as the cause of restlessness.
Complete all 20 selections. Each five-item part needs three ratings for a one-decimal mean from 1 Not at all to 5 Very much wanting to use the format. There are no reverse items; NA is excluded without zero-filling. The minimum is a website completeness rule, not a validated missing-data protocol. Four separate means create no total, highest, close-score or tied type, or brain-type percentages. A 0.1 difference establishes neither significance, ability, effectiveness nor change, and differing rated counts limit precise comparison.
What this part describes
“Kinesthetic/practical” refers here only to selected examples and safe trials, not simply bodily movement or an amount of exercise. You might want a concrete case, sample cards or a reversible step. Items ask whether you want these arrangements, not the quality of actual action or a need to perform every topic physically.
Higher, lower and mixed readings
A higher mean indicates more desire for these examples and trials now; a lower mean less, without rating practical or learning skill. You may want a demonstration but not action today, or mark NA when material is inaccessible. All four parts remain available. A highest practical mean creates no bodily brain identity, and a lower one does not establish reluctance to try.
One presentation of the same content
For the same fictional process, label two blank cards “original” and “copy.” Add a date and version name only to the copy card, leaving the date blank if unclear. This shows one arrangement without changing real files. Completing the card example establishes neither file-management competence nor suitability for a related career.
Discussing an arrangement
You might ask to see an ordinary example before deciding whether to try a small step, with the necessary rules retained. This does not ask to bypass instructions or safety guidance or require someone else to supply equipment. Reversibility, stopping and access need checking; the result does not decide an activity’s safety.
Comparisons and combinations
An example can include diagrams, text and speech, so practice need not compete with the other three parts. Diagrams display relationships, text preserves rules, speech permits questions and a trial supplies a concrete use context. These are participation formats, not a prescribed mixture or an optimal teaching formula calculated from one preference attempt.
Counterexamples and actual conditions
Some skills require practice because of the task, irrespective of preference. Other content needs rules or information before any trial. Discomfort sitting can have many causes that this questionnaire never measures. Do not use the result to assign hazardous practice, deny rest or access needs, or judge suitability for surgery, sport, trades or other work.
An optional observation
If you wish, arrange one simple sequence using cards or fictional material and name something you still want to understand. Looking only, taking no action or skipping it are all options. Keep it to your own cards and fictional material. One safe experience observes a desired format, not ability or experimentally validated matching instruction.
Means, NA and completeness
Complete all 20 selections. Each five-item part needs three ratings for a one-decimal mean from 1 Not at all to 5 Very much wanting to use the format. There are no reverse items; NA is excluded without zero-filling. The minimum is a website completeness rule, not a validated missing-data protocol. Four separate means create no total, highest, close-score or tied type, or brain-type percentages. A 0.1 difference establishes neither significance, ability, effectiveness nor change, and differing rated counts limit precise comparison.
Source and scope
FermatMind independently authored these 20 items and four full guides about current desire for ordinary information formats. No VARK questionnaire, algorithm, translation, report or helpsheet is used, rewritten or hosted, and this is not a Kolb or other standard instrument. Familiar format names imply no official scale or validation. Expressed preference and the effects of matching instruction are separate questions. This edition measures no grades, memory, brain type or teaching effect and has no local validation, norms or established English–Chinese equivalence. It does not determine courses, accommodations, careers or fixed classroom groups.