Substance over Style: Assessing the Efficacy of Modality Testing and Teaching

The techniques of meta-analysis were used to arrive at a quantitative synthesis of findings from 39 studies searching for aptitude-treatment interactions. The primary findings indicated that neither modality assessment nor modality instruction were efficacious. When subjects were assessed to ascertain modality preferences, considerable overlap was found between groups exhibiting a modality preference and those not exhibiting such a preference. Modality preference groups were not as clearly differentiated as assumed. With respect to instruction, no benefits accrued to subjects taught by methods matched to their modality preferences. When compared to control subjects receiving no special instruction, the subjects in the modality preference groups receiving differential instruction exhibited only modest gains. In sum, no empirical support was rendered for the modality model. It was concluded that, although intuitively appealing, the modality model should be dismissed and efforts be directed at enhancing general instructional methodology.

[1]  Ingram Olkin,et al.  Estimation of a Single Effect Size: Parametric and Nonparametric Methods , 1985 .

[2]  K. Kavale.  Potential Advantages of the Meta-Analysis Technique for Research in Special Education , 1984 .

[3]  A. Gregorc,et al.  Learning Is a Matter of Style. , 1984 .

[4]  Robert G. Orwin,et al.  A Fail-SafeN for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis , 1983 .

[5]  R. Orwin.  A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. , 1983 .

[6]  Gregg B. Jackson,et al.  Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies , 1982 .

[7]  Helena C. Kraemer,et al.  A nonparametric technique for meta-analysis effect size calculation. , 1982 .

[8]  L. Hedges.  Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect size and Related Estimators , 1981 .

[9]  B. Larrivee.  Modality Preference as a Model for Differentiating Beginning Reading Instruction: A Review of the Issues , 1981 .

[10]  Alan Miller.  Conceptual Matching Models and Interactional Research in Education , 1981 .

[11]  W. Barbe,et al.  What We Know about Modality Strengths. , 1981 .

[12]  G. Glass,et al.  Meta-analysis in social research , 1981 .

[13]  Thomas J. Kampwirth,et al.  Modality Preference and Teaching Method: a Review of the Research , 1980 .

[14]  M. Smith.  Publication bias and meta-analysis , 1980 .

[15]  J. Ysseldyke,et al.  Methodological Considerations in Aptitude-Treatment Interaction Research with Intact Groups. , 1980 .

[16]  Edward H. Haertel,et al.  Research Integration: The State of the Art. , 1980 .

[17]  Judith A. Arter,et al.  Differential Diagnosis—Prescriptive Teaching: A Critical Appraisal , 1979 .

[18]  R. Rosenthal.  The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[19]  K. Dunn,et al.  Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach , 1978 .

[20]  S. Tarver,et al.  Modality Preference and the Teaching of Reading: A Review , 1978, Journal of learning disabilities.

[21]  Judith A. Arter,et al.  Examining the Benefits and Prevalence of Modality Considerations in Special Education , 1977 .

[22]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions , 1977 .

[23]  Leonard S. Cahen,et al.  3: Trait-Treatment Interaction and Learning , 1973 .

[24]  Glenn H. Bracht.  Experimental Factors Related to Aptitude-Treatment Interactions , 1970 .

[25]  M. Charlton.  Predicting Reading Failure. , 1967 .

[26]  Helmer R. Myklebust,et al.  Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices , 1967 .