Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review
Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K · 2004
grade Creviewindependentnot-applicable
Sample
Reported as ~3,800 papers screened, 13 models evaluated in detail (figure obtained from secondary summaries, not verified against the report)
Population
Post-16 learners (partly in scope for this archive at ages 16-18)
Design
ACCESS FAILURE. The Learning and Skills Research Centre report is not deposited with a DOI; the VOCEDplus record returned HTTP 403 and no full text was retrievable. What is recorded here comes from secondary summaries, not from the report, and is therefore not usable as evidence. The commonly cited findings - low reliability and poor validity for most of the 13 evaluated instruments, and scarce empirical support for matching - are consistent with sources this archive did read, but were not verified here.
Key findings
Not read directly; secondary summaries report low reliability/validity across most models and scarce empirical support for matching instruction to style.
Genetic confound
Not assessed - report not read.
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| not extracted | not extracted | not extracted | unknown | n/a | unclear | not-applicable | unclear |