![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
The authors critiqued the M. K. Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis of the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Preferences (DDMLSP). The conclusion that Lovelace reported in her meta-analysis that learning-style instruction is a beneficial form of instructional delivery is unjustified because of critical conceptual and practical problems. 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 the synthesis of many different types of studies. However, 96% of studies 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 must address such concerns before the DDMLSP can be accepted by the education community.