An article published by The Conversation on January 6, co-authored by Virginia Clinton-Lisell, an associate professor of education, health and behavior, explores the effects of customizing lessons to students’ learning styles. As of January 21, this article has been republished by 24 media outlets and read over 14,000 times globally.
The Conversation is a nonprofit media resource that provides explanatory journalism authored by university scholars for free republication. A comprehensive list of articles by University of North Dakota (UND) scholars can be accessed on their website.
For those interested in contributing to The Conversation, UND faculty members and graduate students are encouraged to consult “Introducing The Conversation,” a guide published in UND Today in 2022. An additional piece titled “More than 340,000 readers worldwide” highlighted positive feedback from UND authors who have contributed to The Conversation.
Inquiries can be directed to Tom Dennis, UND associate director of communications at tom.dennis@und.edu or Adam Kurtz, UND strategic communication editor at adam.kurtz.1@UND.edu.
Graduate student Christine Litzinger collaborated with Clinton-Lisell to analyze data from 21 studies involving over 1,700 participants across various educational stages. Their analysis revealed that while students with matched instruction performed slightly better on tests compared to unmatched instruction peers, the benefits did not justify the extensive resources required for personalizing lessons based on learning styles.
Learning styles remain a contentious issue within education. Although nearly 90% of educators support matching instruction to learning styles to cater to diverse needs, many education researchers advise against it due to insufficient evidence supporting its efficacy.
Providing personalized instruction demands significant time and resources as teachers must identify each student’s learning style accurately and create tailored materials accordingly. Multimodal instruction could offer a more efficient alternative by exposing students to various modalities without necessitating different teaching methods for every lesson.
This approach might also benefit students without a distinct learning style; however, most studies included in the meta-analysis did not focus on these individuals. Thus, the effectiveness of matched instruction for such students remains uncertain.
