Studying Kinds: Two Research, Two Conclusions
@TeacherToolkit
Ross Morrison McGill based @TeacherToolkit in 2007, and at the moment, he is without doubt one of the ‘most adopted educators’on social media on the planet. In 2015, he was nominated as one of many ‘500 Most Influential Folks in Britain’ by The Sunday Instances on account of…
Learn extra about @TeacherToolkit
Do studying types enhance scholar achievement, and who ought to we consider?
Two main research attain utterly completely different conclusions about studying types. One says ditch them. The opposite says they work. Who’s proper?
Two research. Two outcomes.
Two current meta-analyses have tried to settle the decades-long debate about studying types—and arrived at reverse conclusions.
Final week I summarised Hattie & O’Leary’s analysis (2025) reviewed 17 earlier meta-analyses (n = 105,024) and concluded that matching educating to studying types had NO affect on achievement. Following this abstract, a colleague shared this paper, a 2023 Turkish meta-analysis by Erdem & Kaf (n = 1,465) discovered a giant constructive impact (d = 0.926) from utilizing learning-style-based instruction.
Who to consider?
Why studying types stay standard
In accordance with Hattie’s evaluation, the issue isn’t studying preferences – it’s how they’re misunderstood. Lecturers usually confuse studying types with methods and find yourself planning classes based mostly on VAK (visible, auditory and kinaesthetic) quizzes that don’t correlate with precise studying positive aspects. The concept is engaging as a result of it feels private and student-centred – however there’s no measurable profit.
Erdem & Kaf’s examine paints a distinct image. They solely included experimental research the place (Turkish) college students have been truly taught utilizing strategies tailor-made to their fashion (e.g., Kolb or Dunn & Dunn fashions). These weren’t simply surveys or quizzes; they have been rigorously structured interventions. The outcomes, particularly in science and maths, confirmed vital positive aspects in scholar achievement.
What ought to academics do?
So, what ought to academics do?
Hattie & O’Leary counsel abandoning the training types mannequin fully. They argue that it distracts from methods which have sturdy proof, like retrieval follow, self-questioning, and spaced studying. They encourage a shift in the direction of metacognitive educating—the place college students replicate on which methods assist them most.
Erdem & Kaf say the alternative: when executed correctly, adapting educating to studying types improves outcomes. They suggest continued use, notably in STEM topics, however acknowledge extra cross-disciplinary analysis is required. If studying types are for use, they need to inform how college students entry materials—not how content material is delivered to them in inflexible classes.
After additional digging and analysis, the Erdem & Kaf is predicated on research in Turkey, and most significantly, on unpublished work, not peer reviewed. This implies, even when the strategies met scholarly requirements for rigour and transparency, a world image could possibly be missing when in comparison with the Hattie and O’Leary meta evaluation which elements in 100,000 college students and previous, printed analysis from throughout the globe.
I do know what paper I’d belief.
Each analysis papers conclude:
There is no such thing as a assist for the matching declare that college students with completely different studying types want completely different types of educating matched to their fashion. – Hattie & O’Leary (2025)
Studying-style based mostly instruction makes a constructive contribution to tutorial success in each discipline (E++ = 0.926). A extremely statistically vital impact. – Erdem & Kaf (2023).
It’s not that Erdem & Kaf’s analysis is mistaken, it’s that it’s an outlier in a a lot bigger physique of analysis that persistently finds studying types have no measurable profit. Nevertheless, they could have a distinct opinion to me, which can clarify why studying types continues to be a prevailing delusion.
Separating desire from follow
- Do academics nonetheless use VAK/VARK surveys in planning?
- Are college students being labelled by fashion or taught the way to be taught?
- Do classroom methods adapt based mostly on activity, not desire?
- What’s the distinction between a studying fashion and a studying technique?
- How can SEND provision transfer past style-based assumptions?
- Are CPD periods nonetheless selling studying types idea?
- Which analysis findings do academics belief—and why?
- What may clarify the cultural or academic variations between these two research?
- Ought to studying preferences form lesson entry or lesson supply?
- How do academics make classroom choices when analysis is conflicting?
