• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
94
n a meta-analysis investigating the Dunn and DunnModel of Learning-Style Preferences (DDMLSP), Dunn,Griggs, Olson, Beasley, and Gorman (1995) concludedthat “providing educational interventions that are compat-ible with students’ learning-style preferences is beneficial”(p. 357). Ten years later, in a similar meta-analysis, Lovelace(2005) affirmed the Dunn et al. findings: “The results fromthe current and previous meta-analyses were consistent androbust. . . . I strongly suggest that learning-style responsiveinstruction would increase the achievement of and improvethe attitudes toward learning” (p. 181).The positive conclusions about the importance of learn-ing-styles instruction stand in contrast to an earlier meta-analysis by Kavale and Forness (1987) who found littleempirical support for learning-style instruction and con-cluded that “learning appears to be really a matter of substance over style” (p. 238). Dunn et al. (1995; see alsoDunn, 1990) contended that the Kavale and Forness (1987)meta-analysis was flawed because of a number of limita-tions, including the (a) addition of studies from diversemodels in which researchers used different populations andidentification assessments than used in the DDMLSP, (b)omission of studies that focused on the specific variablespurportedly investigated, and (c) assumption that specificterms were defined and treated similarly in the includedstudies. However, such criticisms are not warranted becausethey ignore the primary purpose of meta-analysis. As aresearch synthesis technique, meta-analysis combines stud-ies that may vary across a number of dimensions to achievegeneralizations across an entire research domain. Althoughone may perceive that process as “mixing apples andoranges,” Glass, McGaw, and Smith (1981) commentedthat “the claim that only studies which are the same in allrespects can be compared is self-contradictory; there is noneed to compare them since they would obviously have thesame findings within statistical error” (pp. 22–23).The Dunn et al. (1995) and Lovelace (2005) meta-analyses did not synthesize different studies (i.e., studiesinvestigating models other than the DDMLSP). That prob-lem, along with other difficulties, raises questions about thepositive conclusions offered in the two meta-analyses. Ourpurpose was to elucidate the problems and demonstratethat the recent Lovelace meta-analysis does not offer fur-ther validation of the DDMLSP.
The Lovelace Meta-Analysis
In her meta-analysis, Lovelace (2005) investigated “theoverall effectiveness of the model and [examined] moderat-ing variables that might affect outcomes resulting from useof the model” (p. 178). On the basis of 76 “original researchinvestigations” (p. 179) and 168 effect sizes, Lovelace founda weighted
d
of .67 for achievement and a weighted
d
of .80for improved attitude toward learning. Her interpretationof effect-size (
ES
) magnitudes was that they demonstratedthat “The data overwhelmingly supported the position thatmatching students’ learning style preferences with comple-mentary instruction improved academic achievement and
 Address correspondence to Kenneth A. Kavale, School of Educa-tion, Regent University, 1000 University Drive, Virginia Beach, VA23464. (E-mail: kkavale@regent.edu)Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
Dunn and Dunn Model ofLearning-Style Preferences:Critique of Lovelace Meta-Analysis
KENNETH A. KAVALEGRETCHEN B. L
E
 FEVER
Regent UniversityABSTRACT
 
The authors critiqued the M. K. Lovelace(2005) meta-analysis of the Dunn and Dunn Model ofLearning-Style Preferences (DDMLSP). The conclusion thatLovelace reported in her meta-analysis that learning-styleinstruction is a beneficial form of instructional delivery isunjustified because of critical conceptual and practical prob-lems. Those problems surround interpretation of effect size,narrow focus on a single model, missing information, and,most notably, a sampling bias. Meta-analysis relies on thesynthesis of many different types of studies. However, 96% ofstudies cited in the Lovelace meta-analysis were dissertations(70% with authors of the DDMLSP), leading to potential“home-team” bias. The proponents of the DDMLSP mustaddress such concerns before the DDMLSP can be acceptedby the education community.Keywords: Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Prefer-ences, learning-style instruction, Lovelace meta-analysis
I
 
student attitudes toward learning” (p. 181). Although theLovelace meta-analysis is well done and possesses no majormethodological difficulties, several conceptual and practi-cal problems significantly limit findings. Consequently, wedo not believe that the Lovelace meta-analysis providesthe intended level of support for the DDMLSP. Instead,caution is necessary before one can accept the optimisticpicture about the nature of the DDMLSP.
Conceptual and Practical Problems
Status of the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-StylePreferences
Although well known and widely used, the DDMLSPis not the only available learning-style model. Far greaterinsight into the efficacy of instruction based on learning-style might have been achieved if DDMLSP researcherscompared and contrasted the DDMLSP with other mod-els offering divergent interpretations of the learning-styleconstruct. Meta-analysis, with its comprehensive searchperspective (i.e., seeking all available empirical research)offers the possibility of simultaneously investigating theefficacy of different learning-style models. The focus on asingle model in the Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis providesno context for evaluating alternative models. For example,would another learning-style model produce larger effectsizes than the Dunn and Dunn model?Using Cohen’s (1988) criteria, Lovelace (2005) sug-gested that the obtained
ES
values for achievement weremoderate to large and that “learning-style instructionmight be expected to increase student achievement by25 to 30 percentile points” (p. 179). A simple “statisti-cal” interpretation lacks a context of comparative value.Consequently, without comparisons to other learning-stylemodels, it is difficult for one to judge the real importanceof the Lovelace findings.
Meaning of ES
In contrast to the moderate-to-large
ES
reported byLovelace (2005), Kavale and Forness (1987) found a small
ES
(.14) across 30 studies investigating different interpreta-tions of learning-style instruction, including the DDMLSP.Kavale and Forness (1990) placed learning-style instruc-tion in the context of process training and found that itfell between perceptual-motor training (
ES
= .08) andsocial skills training (
ES
= .20). Any form of processtraining (e.g., learning-style instruction) may reveal lim-ited efficacy because of the inherent difficulties in dealingwith hypothetical (unobservable) constructs that makethe conceptual foundation for learning-style instructionenormously complex and not easily defined (see Cronbach& Snow, 1977).Although one may argue that the DDMLSP representsa special case of effective process training, how does theDunn and Dunn model fare in the context of instructionaleffectiveness? When compared with other instructionalpractices, the DDMLSP reveals more modest efficacy.For example, Kavale (2007) showed that practices likeproviding reinforcement (
ES
= 1.17), drill and practice(
ES
= .99), and providing feedback (
ES
= .97) reveal verypositive outcomes and are easier to implement than are themachinations required for assessing and matching instruc-tion to preferred learning style. In addition, instructionmethods designed to enhance academic performance reveallarger effects than learning-style instruction. Mnemonicinstruction (
ES
= 1.62), strategy instruction (
ES
= .98),and direct instruction (
ES
= .93) are superior to learn-ing-style instruction and focus immediately on teachingcontent (i.e., substance). The prerequisite work requiredto implement the DDMLSP “will serve only to deflectattention away from the primary requirement for learning-substance” (Kavale & Forness, 1990, p. 360).
Missing Information
Lovelace (2005) provided a number of different inter-pretations for the obtained
ES
that were useful in under-standing the findings. Like the Dunn et al. (1995) report,however, Lovelace did not report measures of variabilityassociated with the mean values, which is a significantlimitation.The mean as a measure of central tendency targets thecenter of a distribution but does not describe the extentto which contributing individual scores differ. Most meta-analyses, when reporting mean values, also report an asso-ciated standard deviation (
SD
) that indicates the amountof dispersion around the mean. That statistic is importantbecause distributions may possess equal mean values butpossess significantly different shapes because of more-or-less associated variability. When variability is comparative-ly small, the contributing scores cluster around the mean,allowing for the possibility of greater confidence about thestability of the mean value.The lack of a reported measure of variability in theLovelace (2005) meta-analysis limits interpretation of themean value (see Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Kavale andForness (1990) showed that many educational interven-tions reveal more variability than effectiveness (i.e., the
SD
is larger than the
ES
). For example, Kavale and Forness(1987) found an
ES
of .14 and
SD
of .28, indicating thatlearning-style instruction is twice as variable as it is effec-tive. If the two statistics are used to represent a theoreticalexpectation (
ES
±
SD
) about where a particular effect mayfall, then learning-style instruction may vary from negativeto zero to positive (.14 ± .28). Theoretically, learning-style instruction can be moderately effective (.42), veryineffective (–.14; i.e., students
not
receiving learning-styleinstruction perform better), or something in between. Thepositive skewness of achievement distribution suggests thatthe
ES
cluster at the low end and “tail off” at the high
November/December 2007 [Vol. 101(No. 2)] 95
 
end (see Lovelace, p. 179). Without a measure of vari-ability, one cannot place the mean in context, suggestingthat Lovelace’s interpretation of the mean
ES
cannot beunequivocally accepted.
Sampling 
Locating research studies is a critical aspect of meta-analysis: “How one searches determines what one finds;and what one finds is the basis of the conclusions of one’sintegration of studies” (Glass et al., 1981, p. 61). Simul-taneously, “Locating studies is the stage at which themost serious form of bias enters a meta-analysis since it isdifficult to assess the impact of a potential bias” (p. 57).Bias can be avoided with a comprehensive descriptionof search procedures that permits an “assessment of therepresentativeness and completeness of the data base for ameta-analysis” (p. 57). In addition, the goal of the litera-ture search should be the inclusion of every available studybecause it “avoids the dilemma of choosing among studiesand justifying why only some are included. It eliminatesdebates about which studies are worthy of inclusion” (Light& Pillemer, 1984, p. 32).Kavale, Hirshoren, and Forness (1998) criticized theearlier Dunn et al. (1995) meta-analysis for its potentiallybiased sampling: “The Dunn et al. meta-analysis seems tohave a dearth of published literature [i.e., peer-reviewedjournal articles] because 35 of the 36 studies includedwere dissertations. When 97% of included studies are dis-sertations, can we assume that a comprehensive literaturesearch was achieved?” (p. 76). Without the level of scrutinyoffered by the peer-review process for most journal articles,it is not possible for one to have confidence in the reli-ability of findings from dissertations. Regardless of whetherthe DDMLSP “has been developed, researched, and refinedduring the past three decades by at least 18 professors andmore than 200 graduate students at St. John’s University, New York” (Kritsonis, 1997–1998, p. 2), the possibility of bias exists when conducted under the direction of thosewho developed the learning-style model (see Curry, 1990).The bias becomes more probable “when it is realized that21 (58%) of the 36 studies included were completed atSt. John’s University, where Dunn heads the Center forthe Study of Learning and Teaching Styles. Some tangibleproof that no bias exists is absolutely necessary under suchcircumstances” (Kavale et al., 1998, p. 77).The Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis also appears to pos-sess a dearth of published literature. Although Lovelace“conducted a comprehensive literature search to locatepublished and unpublished experimental research inves-tigations” (p. 178), 96% (
n
= 73) of the included studieswere dissertations (i.e., unpublished literature). Only threeitems (i.e., two journal articles and one book chapter thatmay or may not have been peer reviewed) represented thepublished literature on the DDMLSP. Also, 70% (
n
= 51)of the included dissertations were completed at St. John’sUniversity, which again increases the potential for “home-team” bias. Thus, questions about potential bias and reli-ability of findings are equally applicable for the Lovelacemeta-analysis.The sampling timeframe for the Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis raises questions about the extent to which it pro-vides new evidence of validity for the DDMLSP. Lovelacesearched the literature from 1980
 –
2000 and found 76studies that met the stipulated inclusion criteria. Of thosestudies, however, 36 were used previously in the Dunn etal. (1995) meta-analysis, whose sampling timeframe was1980
 –
1990. Thus, Lovelace’s (2005) literature base includ-ed only 53% of “new” studies (
n
= 40), which suggestssome limits on interpretation. Given the 47% overlap inthe literature base, it is not surprising (but relatively unin-formative) that Lovelace found, “The effect-size values andgeneral findings were similar in both the previous and thecurrent meta-analyses” (p. 180).If Lovelace (2005) had limited the search to the years1990
 –
2000, researchers could have compared and con-trasted findings from one time period (1980
 –
1990) withanother time period (1990–2000) and achieved greaterinsight into the theoretical status of the DDMLSP. Withalmost one half of the findings already known, determiningthe extent to which the Lovelace meta-analysis providedenhanced understanding of the DDMLSP is difficult.The completeness of the Lovelace (2005) literaturesearch is also open to question. A review of one of hermajor sources (“Research based on the Dunn and Dunnmodel”) reveals that Lovelace included a dissertation fromSt. John’s University by Ciarletta (1998) titled, “Effectson first- and second-graders’ achievement and attitudesthrough a learning-style and multicultural literature-basedapproach” but did not include the next citation that wasa dissertation from St. John’s University by Cirelli (1998)titled, “An experimental investigation of the effects of learning-style perceptual strengths and instructional strate-gies on special education and general education interme-diate students’ achievement and attitudes.” The Cirellidissertation appears to meet Lovelace’s inclusion criteriaand seems as appropriate as the Ciarletta dissertation, so itseems reasonable for one to ask why it was not included.The sampling timeframe, however, had little influenceon the fact that dissertations predominated the Lovelace(1995) meta-analysis. Finding a predominance of unpub-lished literature does not make for a better literature basebecause it has not undergone the rigors of the peer-reviewprocess before reaching the professional community. If not published, dissertations do not receive a second levelof scrutiny (i.e., independent reviewers), which ensuresgreater confidence about the validity and trustworthinessof findings.Why is relatively little published research availablethat investigates the DDMLSP? Several explanationsare possible. One possibility is that students have littledesire to craft journal pieces. A second possibility, more
96 The Journal of Educational Research
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...