Christine Litzinger’s scientific contributions

Learning styles have been a contentious topic in education for years. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the effects of matching instruction to modality learning styles compared to unmatched instruction on learning outcomes. A systematic search of the research findings yielded 21 eligible studies with 101 effect sizes and 1,712 participants for the meta-analysis. Based on robust variance estimation, there was an overall benefit of matching instruction to learning styles, g = 0.31, SE = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.57], p = 0.02. However, only 26% of learning outcome measures indicated matched instruction benefits for at least two styles, indicating a crossover interaction supportive of the matching hypothesis. In total, 12 studies without sufficient statistical details for the meta-analysis were also examined for an indication of a crossover effect; 25% of these studies had findings indicative of a crossover interaction. Given the time and financial expenses of implementation coupled with low study quality, the benefits of matching instruction to learning styles are interpreted as too small and too infrequent to warrant widespread adoption.

The increased use of screens for reading and study accelerated due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s rapid shift to virtual learning. The intended purpose of this study was to examine mind wandering differences between reading from screens. Unexpectedly, there was a pause in data collection due to COVID-19. This allowed for an incidental comparison of students before and after COVID-19 learning changes. Based on the findings, students after COVID-19 changes (N = 50) used paper for studying less than students beforehand (N = 81) although preferences for studying and reading from paper were similar. In addition, students after COVID-19 reported more task-unrelated thoughts when reading from screens. These findings highlight the likely issues with screen fatigue and technostress students experienced during COVID-19 learning conditions.

E-texts afford interactive features that are not feasible with paper texts. Several studies have been conducted examining interactive features of e-texts, but it is uncertain what the overall effect is or what features may be most useful. The purpose of this study is to systematically review and meta-analyze the findings comparing reading performance and/or reading times between e-texts with interactive features and control texts (paper or static e-texts). The systematic search of the literature identified 26 independent studies on reading performance. Based on the meta-analyses, interactive features benefited reading performance (g = .66, p < .001). Individual studies with positive effects involved multiple interactive features; however, potential contributions of three types of features (questions with feedback, digital glossaries, and collaborative tools) are discussed. Future directions for examining interactive features experimentally to better understand what features are most helpful for whom are described.