Dunn and Dunn Model of
Learning-Style Preferences:
Critique of Lovelace Meta-Analysis
KENNETH A. KAVALE
GRETCHEN B. LEFEVER
Regent University
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 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 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.
Keywords: Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Prefer-
ences, learning-style instruction, Lovelace meta-analysis
I
n a meta-analysis investigating the Dunn and Dunn
Model of Learning-Style Preferences (DDMLSP), Dunn,
Griggs, Olson, Beasley, and Gorman (1995) concluded
that “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 from
the current and previous meta-analyses were consistent and
robust. . . . I strongly suggest that learning-style responsive
instruction would increase the achievement of and improve
the 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 little
empirical 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 also
Dunn, 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 diverse
models in which researchers used different populations and
identification assessments than used in the DDMLSP, (b)
94
omission of studies that focused on the specific variables
purportedly investigated, and (c) assumption that specific
terms were defined and treated similarly in the included
studies. However, such criticisms are not warranted because
they ignore the primary purpose of meta-analysis. As a
research synthesis technique, meta-analysis combines stud-
ies that may vary across a number of dimensions to achieve
generalizations across an entire research domain. Although
one may perceive that process as “mixing apples and
oranges,” Glass, McGaw, and Smith (1981) commented
that “the claim that only studies which are the same in all
respects can be compared is self-contradictory; there is no
need to compare them since they would obviously have the
same findings within statistical error” (pp. 22–23).
The Dunn et al. (1995) and Lovelace (2005) meta-
analyses did not synthesize different studies (i.e., studies
investigating models other than the DDMLSP). That prob-
lem, along with other difficulties, raises questions about the
positive conclusions offered in the two meta-analyses. Our
purpose was to elucidate the problems and demonstrate
that 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 “the
overall effectiveness of the model and [examined] moderat-
ing variables that might affect outcomes resulting from use
of the model” (p. 178). On the basis of 76 “original research
investigations” (p. 179) and 168 effect sizes, Lovelace found
a weighted d of .67 for achievement and a weighted d of .80
for improved attitude toward learning. Her interpretation
of effect-size (ES) magnitudes was that they demonstrated
that “The data overwhelmingly supported the position that
matching 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, VA
23464. (E-mail: kkavale@regent.edu)
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
November/December 2007 [Vol. 101(No. 2)]
student attitudes toward learning” (p. 181). Although the
Lovelace meta-analysis is well done and possesses no major
methodological difficulties, several conceptual and practi-
cal problems significantly limit findings. Consequently, we
do not believe that the Lovelace meta-analysis provides
the intended level of support for the DDMLSP. Instead,
caution is necessary before one can accept the optimistic
picture about the nature of the DDMLSP.
Conceptual and Practical Problems
Status of the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style
Preferences
Although well known and widely used, the DDMLSP
is not the only available learning-style model. Far greater
insight into the efficacy of instruction based on learning-
style might have been achieved if DDMLSP researchers
compared and contrasted the DDMLSP with other mod-
els offering divergent interpretations of the learning-style
construct. Meta-analysis, with its comprehensive search
perspective (i.e., seeking all available empirical research)
offers the possibility of simultaneously investigating the
efficacy of different learning-style models. The focus on a
single model in the Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis provides
no context for evaluating alternative models. For example,
would another learning-style model produce larger effect
sizes than the Dunn and Dunn model?
Using Cohen’s (1988) criteria, Lovelace (2005) sug-
gested that the obtained ES values for achievement were
moderate to large and that “learning-style instruction
might be expected to increase student achievement by
25 to 30 percentile points” (p. 179). A simple “statisti-
cal” interpretation lacks a context of comparative value.
Consequently, without comparisons to other learning-style
models, it is difficult for one to judge the real importance
of the Lovelace findings.
Meaning of ES
In contrast to the moderate-to-large ES reported by
Lovelace (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 it
fell between perceptual-motor training (ES = .08) and
social skills training (ES = .20). Any form of process
training (e.g., learning-style instruction) may reveal lim-
ited efficacy because of the inherent difficulties in dealing
with hypothetical (unobservable) constructs that make
the conceptual foundation for learning-style instruction
enormously complex and not easily defined (see Cronbach
& Snow, 1977).
Although one may argue that the DDMLSP represents
a special case of effective process training, how does the
95
Dunn and Dunn model fare in the context of instructional
effectiveness? When compared with other instructional
practices, the DDMLSP reveals more modest efficacy.
For example, Kavale (2007) showed that practices like
providing reinforcement (ES = 1.17), drill and practice
(ES = .99), and providing feedback (ES = .97) reveal very
positive outcomes and are easier to implement than are the
machinations required for assessing and matching instruc-
tion to preferred learning style. In addition, instruction
methods designed to enhance academic performance reveal
larger effects than learning-style instruction. Mnemonic
instruction (ES = 1.62), strategy instruction (ES = .98),
and direct instruction (ES = .93) are superior to learn-
ing-style instruction and focus immediately on teaching
content (i.e., substance). The prerequisite work required
to implement the DDMLSP “will serve only to deflect
attention 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 variability
associated with the mean values, which is a significant
limitation.
The mean as a measure of central tendency targets the
center of a distribution but does not describe the extent
to which contributing individual scores differ. Most meta-
analyses, when reporting mean values, also report an asso-
ciated standard deviation (SD) that indicates the amount
of dispersion around the mean. That statistic is important
because distributions may possess equal mean values but
possess 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 the
stability of the mean value.
The lack of a reported measure of variability in the
Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis limits interpretation of the
mean value (see Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Kavale and
Forness (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 that
learning-style instruction is twice as variable as it is effec-
tive. If the two statistics are used to represent a theoretical
expectation (ES ± SD) about where a particular effect may
fall, then learning-style instruction may vary from negative
to zero to positive (.14 ± .28). Theoretically, learning-
style instruction can be moderately effective (.42), very
ineffective (–.14; i.e., students not receiving learning-style
instruction perform better), or something in between. The
positive skewness of achievement distribution suggests that
the ES cluster at the low end and “tail off” at the high
96
end (see Lovelace, p. 179). Without a measure of vari-
ability, one cannot place the mean in context, suggesting
that Lovelace’s interpretation of the mean ES cannot be
unequivocally 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’s
integration of studies” (Glass et al., 1981, p. 61). Simul-
taneously, “Locating studies is the stage at which the
most serious form of bias enters a meta-analysis since it is
difficult to assess the impact of a potential bias” (p. 57).
Bias can be avoided with a comprehensive description
of search procedures that permits an “assessment of the
representativeness and completeness of the data base for a
meta-analysis” (p. 57). In addition, the goal of the litera-
ture search should be the inclusion of every available study
because it “avoids the dilemma of choosing among studies
and justifying why only some are included. It eliminates
debates about which studies are worthy of inclusion” (Light
& Pillemer, 1984, p. 32).
Kavale, Hirshoren, and Forness (1998) criticized the
earlier Dunn et al. (1995) meta-analysis for its potentially
biased sampling: “The Dunn et al. meta-analysis seems to
have a dearth of published literature [i.e., peer-reviewed
journal articles] because 35 of the 36 studies included
were dissertations. When 97% of included studies are dis-
sertations, can we assume that a comprehensive literature
search was achieved?” (p. 76). Without the level of scrutiny
offered 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 whether
the DDMLSP “has been developed, researched, and refined
during the past three decades by at least 18 professors and
more 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 those
who developed the learning-style model (see Curry, 1990).
The bias becomes more probable “when it is realized that
21 (58%) of the 36 studies included were completed at
St. John’s University, where Dunn heads the Center for
the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles. Some tangible
proof that no bias exists is absolutely necessary under such
circumstances” (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 locate
published and unpublished experimental research inves-
tigations” (p. 178), 96% (n = 73) of the included studies
were dissertations (i.e., unpublished literature). Only three
items (i.e., two journal articles and one book chapter that
may or may not have been peer reviewed) represented the
published literature on the DDMLSP. Also, 70% (n = 51)
of the included dissertations were completed at St. John’s
The Journal of Educational Research
University, which again increases the potential for “home-
team” bias. Thus, questions about potential bias and reli-
ability of findings are equally applicable for the Lovelace
meta-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. Lovelace
searched the literature from 1980–2000 and found 76
studies that met the stipulated inclusion criteria. Of those
studies, however, 36 were used previously in the Dunn et
al. (1995) meta-analysis, whose sampling timeframe was
1980–1990. Thus, Lovelace’s (2005) literature base includ-
ed only 53% of “new” studies (n = 40), which suggests
some limits on interpretation. Given the 47% overlap in
the literature base, it is not surprising (but relatively unin-
formative) that Lovelace found, “The effect-size values and
general findings were similar in both the previous and the
current meta-analyses” (p. 180).
If Lovelace (2005) had limited the search to the years
1990–2000, researchers could have compared and con-
trasted findings from one time period (1980–1990) with
another time period (1990–2000) and achieved greater
insight into the theoretical status of the DDMLSP. With
almost one half of the findings already known, determining
the extent to which the Lovelace meta-analysis provided
enhanced understanding of the DDMLSP is difficult.
The completeness of the Lovelace (2005) literature
search is also open to question. A review of one of her
major sources (“Research based on the Dunn and Dunn
model”) reveals that Lovelace included a dissertation from
St. John’s University by Ciarletta (1998) titled, “Effects
on first- and second-graders’ achievement and attitudes
through a learning-style and multicultural literature-based
approach” but did not include the next citation that was
a 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 Cirelli
dissertation appears to meet Lovelace’s inclusion criteria
and seems as appropriate as the Ciarletta dissertation, so it
seems reasonable for one to ask why it was not included.
The sampling timeframe, however, had little influence
on the fact that dissertations predominated the Lovelace
(1995) meta-analysis. Finding a predominance of unpub-
lished literature does not make for a better literature base
because it has not undergone the rigors of the peer-review
process before reaching the professional community. If
not published, dissertations do not receive a second level
of scrutiny (i.e., independent reviewers), which ensures
greater confidence about the validity and trustworthiness
of findings.
Why is relatively little published research available
that investigates the DDMLSP? Several explanations
are possible. One possibility is that students have little
desire to craft journal pieces. A second possibility, more
November/December 2007 [Vol. 101(No. 2)]
distressing, is that journal articles are submitted for pub-
lication but rejected after peer review. A third possibility
is that beyond the faculty and students at the St. John’s
University Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching
Styles, there is little interest in the DDMLSP in the wider
educational research community. Whatever the reason, it
is incumbent on Lovelace (2005) to explain why disserta-
tions (and particularly St. John’s dissertations) dominated
the literature base.
Conclusion
The Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis represents a con-
tinuing effort to validate the DDMLSP. Like its predeces-
sor, the Dunn et al. (1995) meta-analysis, the Lovelace
synthesis possesses a number of significant problems that
limit confidence in the findings. The problems surround
interpretation of effect size, narrow focus on a single model,
missing information, and, most notably, the nature of the
literature base.
None of the problems of the Lovelace synthesis are
new; an earlier critique by Kavale et al. (1998) raised
similar issues about the Dunn et al. (1995) meta-analysis.
Yet, Lovelace did not address the fundamental difficulties,
and consequently, the findings must again be called into
question.
Although the Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis shows sev-
eral technical advances (e.g., different interpretations of
the ES statistic), the failure to address previous concerns
means that the Dunn and Dunn model has not yet been
validated. Some answers to the questions raised in this
article are necessary before the DDMLSP can be accepted
by the educational community.
97
REFERENCES
Ciarletta, M. (1998). Effects on first- and second-graders’ achievement
and attitudes through a learning-style and multicultural literature-based
approach. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 59(08), 2824A.
Cirelli, M. E. (1998). An experimental investigation of the effects of learning-
style perceptual strengths and instructional strategies on special education and
general education intermediate students’ achievement and attitudes (Doc-
toral dissertation, St. John’s University). (Pending).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods:
A handbook on research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
Curry, L. (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational
Leadership, 49, 50–52, 54–56.
Dunn, R. (1990). Bias over substance: A critical analysis of Kavale and
Forness’ report on modality-based instruction. Exceptional Children, 56,
352–356.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Beasley, M., & Gorman, B. S. (1995). A
meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style
preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88, 353–362.
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting
error and bias in research findings (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kavale, K. A. (2007). Quantitative research synthesis: Meta-analysis of
research on meeting special educational needs. In L. Florian (Ed.), The
Sage handbook of special education. London: Sage.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing
the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54,
228–239.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1990). Substance over style: A rejoinder
to Dunn’s animad versions. Exceptional Children, 56, 357–361.
Kavale, K. A., Hirshoren, A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). Meta-analytic
validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences:
A critique of what was Dunn. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
13, 75–80.
Kritsonis, W. (1997–1998). National learning-styles studies impact classroom
pedagogy. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 11, 1–3.
Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of viewing
research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lovelace, M. K. (2005). Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the
Dunn and Dunn model. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 176–183.
 ����������������������������������� ����������������������

����������������������������������� ���������������
��������������� � � �� �� �� �� �� �

� ������������������
����������
�������������� � ����� ����

�����������������
��������������������������������������������������� � ����� ����
������������

��������������������������������������������������� � �� �

��������������� � ���� ���

����������������������������������������
���������������������������������������������������

� �� �
��������������������������
��������������������������������������������������� � ����� ����

����������� � ��� �
���������������������������������������������������

� �� �

� �� �
����������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������
� �� �

� ��� �

� ����� ����

� ���� ���

� ����� ����
�
� ��� ���

�
������������

������������������