Correlational meta-analyses of learning styles and achievement average r = 0.24 but do not test or support the matching hypothesis¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i2 Thirteen correlational meta-analyses summarizing 559 studies show an average correlation of r = 0.24 (d = 0.50) between learning style scores and achievement, but these correlations say nothing about matching styles to optimize achievement. → John Hattie 2025
Evidence¶
John Hattie 2025¶
John Hattie, Timothy O'Leary. (2025). Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10002-w
q3 · i2 · review · r2
Synthesis of the 13 correlational meta-analyses in the MetaX database (559 studies, 82,853 people per Table 1). The review reports the pooled "correlation of r = 0.24 (d = 0.50)" and stresses that causality and directionality are lost; the correlation is a moderate effect size as printed.
"Secondly, the correlation-based meta-analyses have an overage correlation of r = 0.24 (d = 0.50) and say nothing about matching styles to optimize achievement outcomes. Causality and directionality are lost in these correlations."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Learning-Style Preferences — predictor: learners reporting different styles differed here; not a test of matching instruction to style
Related Claims¶
- Meta-analyses testing the matching hypothesis show a negligible overall effect of matching teaching to students' learning styles (d = 0.04) — related
- Learning style (visual-verbal) shows no significant correlation with the effectiveness of pictorial elucidation for adolescent EFL learners — related
- Deep approaches to learning correlate positively and surface approaches negatively with academic achievement — related
- Learning Styles Matching Does Not Improve Learning — related
- Science achievements correlated significantly and positively with preferences for visual, auditory, and agency-support means, but not sensorimotor means, with low coefficients — related
- Type of achievement measure moderates the correlation only when laboratory measures are excluded; course-exam correlation drops to r = .04 — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
learning-style-achievement-correlations-r24 |
title |
Correlational meta-analyses of learning styles and achievement average r = 0.24 but do not test or support the matching hypothesis |
description |
Correlational meta-analyses of learning styles and achievement average r = 0.24 but do not test or support the matching hypothesis |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
source_checked |
2026-10-21 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — john-hattie-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.