The Jingle-Jangle of Approaches to Learning in Prekindergarten: a Construct with Too Many Names

Beisly, Amber

doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09796-4

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, participants may simply be better at reading if they indicate a read/write style or listening if they indicate an auditory style. This results in a jangle fallacy in which two similar constructs (e.g., modality skill and learning styles) are considered different because they have different terminology ( Kelley, 1927 ; Beisley, 2023 ). It should be noted, however, that if this is the case, skills in a modality may have been developed because of preferences in that modality, which would, in turn, lead to more practice and more skill in a particular modality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis

Clinton-Lisell,

Litzinger

2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning styles have been a contentious topic in education for years. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the effects of matching instruction to modality learning styles compared to unmatched instruction on learning outcomes. A systematic search of the research findings yielded 21 eligible studies with 101 effect sizes and 1,712 participants for the meta-analysis. Based on robust variance estimation, there was an overall benefit of matching instruction to learning styles, g = 0.31, SE = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.57], p = 0.02. However, only 26% of learning outcome measures indicated matched instruction benefits for at least two styles, indicating a crossover interaction supportive of the matching hypothesis. In total, 12 studies without sufficient statistical details for the meta-analysis were also examined for an indication of a crossover effect; 25% of these studies had findings indicative of a crossover interaction. Given the time and financial expenses of implementation coupled with low study quality, the benefits of matching instruction to learning styles are interpreted as too small and too infrequent to warrant widespread adoption.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%