"
Skip to Content
Version 1.1 – Updated August 2021

Matching teaching to style of learning

Overview

  • Influence: Matching teaching to style of learning
  • Domain: Student Learning Strategies
  • Sub-Domain: Student-focused interventions
  • Potential to Accelerate Student Achievement: Likely to have positive impact
  • Influence Definition: Where different forms of teaching are tied to the students’ preferred style of learning (e.g., kinesthetic (movement), visual, auditory, and tactile).

Evidence

  • Number of meta-analyses: 14
  • Number of studies: 777
  • Number of students: 99,448
  • Number of effects: 2,948
  • Effect size: 0.34

Meta-Analyses

Meta-Analyses
Journal Title Author First Author's Country Article Name Year Published Variable Number of Studies Number of Students Number of Effects Effect Size
Journal of Research Science Teaching Tamir Israel Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Preferences and Learning 1985 Cognitive preference 54 0 13 0.02
Exceptional Children Kavale & Forness USA Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching 1987 Modality testing and teaching 39 0 318 0.28
Unpublished Thesis Sullivan USA A meta-analysis of experimental research studies based on the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model and its relationship to academic achievement and performance 1993 Dunn and Dunn Learning styles matched to achievement 42 3,434 42 0.75
Unpublished Thesis Iliff USA Kolb Learning Style Inventory: A meta-analysis 1994 Kolb Learning Style matched to achievement 101 0 486 0.33
The Journal of Educational Research Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley & Gorman USA A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences 1995 Interventions to enhance matching learning style on achievement 36 3,181 65 0.76
Unpublished Thesis Slemmer The effect of learning styles on student achievement in various hypertext, hypermedia, and technology-enhanced learning environments: a meta-analysis 2002 Learning styles in hyper/technology environments 48 5,908 51 0.27
Unpublished Thesis Mangino USA A meta-analysis of Dunn and Dunn model correlational research with adult populations 2004 Dunn and Dunn Learning styles for adults 47 8,661 386 0.54
The Journal of Educational Research Lovelace USA Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research Based on the Dunn and Dunn Model 2005 Dunn and Dunn Learning styles matched to achievement 76 7,196 168 0.67
Unpublished Thesis Salvione USA Meta-analysis of Correlational Studies Based on the Dunn and Dunn Model Conducted with Elementary School Populations 2007 Dunn and Dunn learning styles for students 34 7,093 677 0.28
Learning and Individual Differences Peterson & Meissel New Zealand The effect of Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) test on achievement: A meta-analytic review. 2015 verbal-imagery vs holistic thinking 15 0 15 0.16
The Factors Effecting Student Achievement Ay Turkey The Effect of Learning Types/Styles on Student Achievement 2017 Learning styles 60 26,391 60 0.47
Psychological Bulletin Phillips, Fletcher, Marks & Hine USA Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. 2016 Reflection thinking styles on performance 89 17,704 68 0.22
Psychological Bulletin Phillips, Fletcher, Marks & Hine USA Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. 2016 Intuition thinking styles on performance 89 17,704 49 -0.18
Unpublished Thesis Smith USA Meta-analysis of the efficacy of sensory integration training 2011 Sensory integration styles 47 2,176 550 0.25
TOTAL/AVERAGE 777 99,448 2,948 0.34

Confidence

The Confidence is the average of these four measures, each divided into five approximately equal groups and assigned a value from 1 to 5 based on the following criteria:

  • Number of Meta-analyses
    • 1 = 1
    • 2 = 2–3
    • 3 = 4–6
    • 4 = 7–9
    • 5 = 10+
  • Number of Studies
    • 1 = 1–10
    • 2 = 11–50
    • 3 = 51–200
    • 4 = 201–400
    • 5 = 400+
  • Number of Students
    • 1 = 1–2,500
    • 2 = 2,501–10,000
    • 3 = 10,000–20,000
    • 4 = 20,000–100,000
    • 5 = 100,001+
  • Number of Effects
    • 1 = 1–100
    • 2 = 101–300
    • 3 = 301–600
    • 4 = 601–1,200
    • 5 = 1,200+
Confidences
Number of Meta-Analyses Number of Studies Number of Students Number of Effects Overall Confidence
Confidence Factor 5 5 4 5 5
Back to top