Instructional Mode: A Better Predictor of Performance Than Student Preferred Learning Styles

Moussa-Inaty, Jase; Atallah, Fida; Causapin, Mark

doi:10.29333/iji.2019.1232a

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is similar to the findings when the kinesthetic learning intervention was included. There were two studies that were quasi-experiments without random assignment ( Moussa-Inaty et al, 2019 ; Mujtaba et al, 2022 ). This was a concern given that they did not demonstrate baseline equivalence in the study quality coding (see Appendix Table B1 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

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: Resultsmentioning

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

show abstract

“…Pedagogical practices employed by teachers largely influence students' learning of mathematical ideas (Ayebale et al, 2020;Mosimege & Winnaar, 2021;Moussa-Inaty et al, 2019). The pedagogy of interest in this article is the worked example instructional design, which is in use in many classroom classes around the world.…”

Section: Effects Of Worked Example On Students' Learning Outcomes …mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Worked Example on Students’ Learning Outcomes in Complex Algebraic Problems

Adeniji¹,

Baker²

2023

INT J INSTRUCTION

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High school students have been reported to have difficulties solving complex algebraic problems. This study therefore investigated the effects of worked example instruction on students' learning outcomes in solving complex algebraic problems. The study was a quasi-experiment that involved a pre-test, an intervention, a post-test, and a delay test. The responses of 72 students (aged 14 to 15 years) were scored following the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) model and analysed using the Rasch model and regression analysis. The results indicated a significant effect of worked examples from the pre-test to the post-test; however, this effect was not completely retained at the delay test. Also, worked examples had a larger effect on the low-ability students than the highability students, but student gender neither influenced nor interacted with learning outcomes at the post-test and delay test. Lastly, the results revealed an interaction between the worked example effects and students' expertise level, with the highability students experiencing a full reversal of the worked example effect. These results are explained with respect to element interactivity and expertise reversal effects, and inform mathematics educators and teachers of the conditions of the worked example effect and the implications for classroom practices.

show abstract

“…Results failed to support that matching LS preference with instruction had an effect on working memory performance. Moussa‐Inaty, Atallah, and Causapin (2019) investigated the effect of cognitive load in addition to modality on performance. In this study, 94 undergraduate students received material about lightning through a structured lesson in three formats, namely listen only , read only , and read and listen .…”

Section: Experimental Evidence On Lsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Visual Type? Not My Type”: A Systematic Study on the Learning Styles Neuromyth Employing Frequentist and Bayesian Statistics

Touloumakos,

Vlachou,

Papadatou‐Pastou

2023

Mind Brain and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term learning styles (LS) describes the notion that individuals have a preferred modality of learning (i.e., vision, audition, or kinesthesis) and that matching instruction to this modality results in optimal learning. During the last decades, LS has received extensive criticism, yet they remain a virtual truism within education. One of the major strands of criticism is the fact that only a handful of studies have systematically put the LS assumptions to the test. In this study, we aimed to explore whether learners who are visual types will be better at learning sign‐words (i.e., ecologically valid stimuli) compared to auditory and kinesthetic types. Ninety‐nine volunteers (67 females, mean age = 28.66 years) naive to Greek Sign Language (GSL) were instructed to learn 20 GSL sign‐words. The volunteers further completed two LS questionnaires (i.e., the Barsch Learning Styles Inventory and the Learning Channels Inventory) and they also reported what their LS they believed was. No evidence of a difference in learning sign‐words among individuals with different LS (as identified by either of the LS questionnaires or by direct self‐report) was found, neither using a frequentist nor using a Bayesian approach to data analysis. Moreover, inconsistencies between the way participants were classified based on the different measures and direct self‐report were detected. These findings add further support to the criticism of the LS theory and its use in educational settings. We suggest that research and practice resources should be allocated to evidence‐based approaches.

show abstract

Instructional Mode: A Better Predictor of Performance Than Student Preferred Learning Styles

Cited by 5 publications

References 52 publications

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

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

Effects of Worked Example on Students’ Learning Outcomes in Complex Algebraic Problems

“Visual Type? Not My Type”: A Systematic Study on the Learning Styles Neuromyth Employing Frequentist and Bayesian Statistics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About