This reads current desire for a format, not measured learning effectiveness.
This part observes your current desire to use diagrams and spatial layout with material you chose. It tests neither diagram reading, spatial reasoning, vision nor memory, and does not turn wanting a format into learning best through it or a fixed visual-learner identity.
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
Diagrams here use position, links, arrows and overall layout to show relationships. Items ask whether you want to view, organise or mark those relationships, not how accurately you read shapes. A diagram can contain words, but seeing written text alone is not the diagrammatic format meant here. Real material often combines several forms.
Higher, lower and mixed readings
A higher mean indicates more desire for the listed diagram arrangements in this attempt; a lower mean indicates less, without rating visual or spatial ability. You may want a diagram for a process and text for a definition. Equal or close means remain separate rather than producing a dominant brain type, and inaccessible material marked NA is not dislike.
One presentation of the same content
For a fictional file-naming process, write “draft → check date → keep a copy → add version name” on paper, with a branch for checking an unconfirmed date. Arrows show order and conditions. This does not prove diagrams outperform reading or listening; it simply represents ordinary content in an optional form.
Discussing an arrangement
When choosing material, you might say, “I’d like to see how the steps connect, then check the written details.” Written explanation or another accessible form can remain available. This example implies neither inability to follow speech nor a duty for someone to remake all material. Actual needs require discussion rather than a prescription from this test.
Comparisons and combinations
Diagrams emphasise layout of relationships, writing emphasises words and written organisation, speech concerns explanations and discussion, and examples place content in a trial situation. These are not four exclusive abilities. A flowchart may be narrated, rewritten as a list or demonstrated with cards. Means cannot determine an effective combination for a particular course.
Counterexamples and actual conditions
Enjoying an attractive diagram does not establish understanding, and disliking colour coding does not establish poor learning. Some content calls for graphics and some for precise text; task and access needs matter. Do not use this result to restrict courses, careers or accommodations, or remove diagram support you actually need because the mean is lower.
An optional observation
If you wish, sketch an ordinary process with arrows on paper you already have, then write two explanatory sentences. Note separately which form you want to use and what remains unclear. Preference alone may be observed, or the activity skipped. One trial validates neither a fixed style nor matching instruction, and needs no purchase or public result.
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.