The effect of learning-styles-tailored instruction on academic achievement does not differ significantly by learning style model¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Under the random effect model, the between-groups Q for learning style model was not significant (p > .05), so achievement effects do not differ meaningfully across models. → Kanadlı 2016

Evidence¶

Kanadlı 2016¶

Kanadlı, S. (2016). A meta-analysis on the effect of instructional designs based on the learning styles models on academic achievement, attitude and retention. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16, 2057–2086. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.6.0084

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Categorical moderator analysis comparing the 4MAT, Perceptual, Dunn & Dunn and Kolb models (Felder & Solomon and Brain Dominance each appeared in only one study and were excluded). Random-effects common effect sizes were 1.168, 0.870, 1.331 and 1.067 respectively; the article reports "no meaningful difference among the effect sizes".

"In Table 3, the Q statistic calculated under the random effect model yielded no significant ( p > .05) result. These results indicated that there is no meaningful difference among the effect sizes of the classifications made according to learning styles model."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The effect of learning-styles-tailored instruction on academic achievement does not differ significantly between quasi-experimental and true-experimental designs — related
• The effect of learning-styles-tailored instruction on academic achievement does not differ significantly by course type — related
• Instruction tailored to students' learning styles shows a large pooled random-effects effect on academic achievement (d = 1.029) across 29 Turkish experimental studies — a broader claim this one bears on
• Learning Styles Matching Does Not Improve Learning — reports the opposite
• Correlational meta-analyses of learning styles and achievement average r = 0.24 but do not test or support the matching hypothesis — related
• Learning-styles-tailored instruction shows a large pooled effect on students' attitudes toward courses (d = 1.113) — related
• Learning-styles-tailored instruction shows a large pooled effect on retention, with inconsistent printed values (d = 1.763 in Table 7; d = 1.290 in the abstract and discussion) — related