Meta-analyses testing the matching hypothesis show a negligible overall effect of matching teaching to students' learning styles (d = 0.04)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
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 i? Across four meta-analyses capturing 143 studies and 401 effects, matching or meshing teaching to students' preferred learning style has an overall effect size of d = 0.04, providing little to no support for the matching hypothesis. → 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 · i? · review · r2

Synthesis of the four matching-hypothesis meta-analyses in the Visible Learning MetaX database (Garlinger & Frank; Kavale & Forness; Phillips et al.; Peterson & Meissel), summarizing "143 studies" and "401 effects with an overall effect size of d = 0.04 (se = 0.21)". No effect size beyond the pooled d is printed per subclaim.

"There are currently four meta-analyses in the Visible Learning database that specifically address the matching hypothesis relative to academic outcomes (see Table 1). These meta-analyses capture findings from 143 studies and summarize 401 effects with an overall effect size of d = 0.04 (se = 0.21)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Learning-Style Preferences — moderator: an effect differed by reported style in this study; matching to style is not supported overall

Correlational meta-analyses of learning styles and achievement average r = 0.24 but do not test or support the matching hypothesis — related
Learning style (visual-verbal) shows no significant correlation with the effectiveness of pictorial elucidation for adolescent EFL learners — related
Learning Styles Matching Does Not Improve Learning — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
Massa and Mayer's three experiments found no support for matching instruction to visualizer–verbalizer preferences — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Belief in learning styles remains near-universal among educators, with pre-service teachers believing more than qualified teachers — related
Study preferences exist and show some stability, but this alone does not justify learning-styles assessment in education — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`matching-learning-styles-negligible-effect`
`title`	`Meta-analyses testing the matching hypothesis show a negligible overall effect of matching teaching to students' learning styles (d = 0.04)`
`description`	`Meta-analyses testing the matching hypothesis show a negligible overall effect of matching teaching to students' learning styles (d = 0.04)`
`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.