学习风格、偏好还是策略?在许多元分析中对风格复兴的解释

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
John Hattie, Timothy O’Leary
{"title":"学习风格、偏好还是策略?在许多元分析中对风格复兴的解释","authors":"John Hattie, Timothy O’Leary","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10002-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The persistence of learning styles as a concept in educational discourse and research is paradoxical, given the overwhelming evidence discrediting the matching hypothesis, the notion that aligning teaching methods with students’ preferred learning styles enhances achievement. This paper examines the resurgence of learning styles across meta-analyses and proposes an explanation for their enduring appeal. Drawing on 17 meta-analyses, we distinguish between studies testing the matching hypothesis (effect size <i>d</i> = .04) and correlational studies (average correlation <i>r</i> = .24), revealing that the latter often conflates learning styles with learning strategies. Much of the research is flawed, and the argument is that there needs to be a shift away from matching learning styles toward teaching students adaptable and effective learning strategies that align more closely with task complexity and learning goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses\",\"authors\":\"John Hattie, Timothy O’Leary\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-025-10002-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The persistence of learning styles as a concept in educational discourse and research is paradoxical, given the overwhelming evidence discrediting the matching hypothesis, the notion that aligning teaching methods with students’ preferred learning styles enhances achievement. This paper examines the resurgence of learning styles across meta-analyses and proposes an explanation for their enduring appeal. Drawing on 17 meta-analyses, we distinguish between studies testing the matching hypothesis (effect size <i>d</i> = .04) and correlational studies (average correlation <i>r</i> = .24), revealing that the latter often conflates learning styles with learning strategies. Much of the research is flawed, and the argument is that there needs to be a shift away from matching learning styles toward teaching students adaptable and effective learning strategies that align more closely with task complexity and learning goals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10002-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10002-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学习风格作为一个概念在教育话语和研究中的持续存在是矛盾的,因为有大量证据证明匹配假设是不可信的,将教学方法与学生偏好的学习风格相结合的概念可以提高成绩。本文通过荟萃分析考察了学习风格的复苏,并对其持久的吸引力提出了解释。根据17项荟萃分析,我们区分了检验匹配假设(效应值d = 0.04)和相关研究(平均相关r = 0.24)的研究,发现后者经常将学习风格与学习策略混为一谈。许多研究都是有缺陷的,争论的焦点是,需要从匹配学习风格转向教授学生适应能力强、有效的学习策略,这些策略与任务复杂性和学习目标更紧密地结合在一起。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Learning Styles, Preferences, or Strategies? An Explanation for the Resurgence of Styles Across Many Meta-analyses

The persistence of learning styles as a concept in educational discourse and research is paradoxical, given the overwhelming evidence discrediting the matching hypothesis, the notion that aligning teaching methods with students’ preferred learning styles enhances achievement. This paper examines the resurgence of learning styles across meta-analyses and proposes an explanation for their enduring appeal. Drawing on 17 meta-analyses, we distinguish between studies testing the matching hypothesis (effect size d = .04) and correlational studies (average correlation r = .24), revealing that the latter often conflates learning styles with learning strategies. Much of the research is flawed, and the argument is that there needs to be a shift away from matching learning styles toward teaching students adaptable and effective learning strategies that align more closely with task complexity and learning goals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信