Massa and Mayer's three experiments found no support for matching instruction to visualizer–verbalizer preferences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In a replicated set of experiments, learners who received help screens matched to their verbal/visual preferences showed no performance advantage, across nearly 20 individual-difference measures. → Pashler 2009

Evidence¶

Pashler 2009¶

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Volume 9 Number 3. https://journals.sagepub.com/

q3 · i? · review · r2

Set of three experiments using a computer-based electronics lesson with verbal or visual help screens, with preference-based and ability-based measures sorting learners. Results were replicated and "showed no tendency for better performance for those who received help screens matched to their preferences," despite exhaustive analysis of nearly 20 individual-difference measures.

"In general, the results, which the researchers replicated, showed no tendency for better performance for those who received help screens matched to their preferences."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Learning Styles Matching Does Not Improve Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Learning style (visual-verbal) shows no significant correlation with the effectiveness of pictorial elucidation for adolescent EFL learners — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In one author's classroom media experiments, intuitive learners tended to score above sensing learners, though not in every format comparison — related
• Meta-analyses testing the matching hypothesis show a negligible overall effect of matching teaching to students' learning styles (d = 0.04) — a broader claim this one bears on