For teachers · Learning Animal Check

From results to teaching that fits

The Learning Animal Check is the starting point. Here you turn your students’ result codes into concrete teaching decisions, for one student or for the whole class. No names needed, and everything stays in your browser.

This works for both versions. Codes from the elementary version (grades 3 and 4, ages 8 to 10) end in GS, and the values mean the same as in the version for grade 5 and up.

My class overview · Go to the Learning Animal Check · Home

Get started

Evaluate a result code

Enter the code your student received at the end of the check, choose the subject, and you get concrete suggestions for worksheets, lesson openers, practice phases and homework.

Result code

Subject

No name needed, nothing is sent anywhere. To evaluate several codes at once, scroll down to Evaluate results.

What the subject suggestions are based on: each subject has its own tips. They apply the well-supported learning methods (retrieval practice, spaced practice, interleaving, words and pictures together, see Sources) to that subject. This is a teaching-based adaptation, not a separate study for each subject. For math there is additional research on interleaved practice (Rohrer and Taylor).

What the evidence does not support

The widespread belief that teaching has to match a student’s learning style for them to learn better is called the meshing hypothesis. It is not supported by evidence.

In 2008, Pashler and colleagues reviewed more than 70 studies and found no solid basis for it.
The most recent meta-analysis (Clinton-Lisell and Litzinger 2024, 21 studies, 1,712 participants) finds a small effect, but the expected pattern shows up in only about a quarter of the measurements, and study quality is weak.
The authors’ conclusion: too small and too rare to roll out widely.

Why the check still works, especially one on one

It does not work by matching materials to students. It works through three other levers.

Metacognition. Students who think about how they work learn more deliberately.
A reason to talk. Low-key and positive. Often the first conversation that is not about absences or weaknesses.
A vehicle. It brings along the strategies that actually work.

The one rule

Never “You’re visual, so don’t read texts.” Instead: “This is your favorite way in, and here are five methods that work for everyone.” A learning animal is a starting point, not a limit and not a diagnosis.

Not a screening and not a diagnosis

A high Squirrel score says nothing about ADHD, and a low Eagle score says nothing about dyslexia. Drawing conclusions like that would be professionally wrong and harmful to the young people involved.

What applies instead

The student area deliberately contains no diagnostic terms. It only says what is hard right now and what helps. This page does not replace support planning, diagnostic assessment or therapy, and it is not legal advice. What counts is always the regulations and curricula that apply to you and the agreements with your school, your district or school authority and specialist services.

The foundation

Five methods, ranked by how well they work

The order matters. It comes from the utility ratings by Dunlosky and colleagues (2013), who systematically compared ten common learning techniques. The two strongest are also the two that happen least often in class.

What this is about

These are the five learning methods with proven effects. Not for one particular learning style, but for everyone. The learning animal only tells you where to start. These five tell you what actually makes a difference.

The two strongest first

1. Retrieval instead of rereading and 2. Spacing instead of cramming are the only two rated high utility. And these are exactly the two that show up least often in class. If you change only two things, change these.

Rank 1 · High utility

Retrieval instead of rereading

In retrieval practice, students pull knowledge out of their own heads without looking it up. That includes every self-test, every oral quiz and every blank sheet where they write down what stuck. The effect is large, it is documented across all age groups, and it works even when nobody grades the answers afterward.

How to use it: Start every session with five minutes of retrieval instead of reviewing the material yourself. Nothing gets graded. One prompt is enough: “Tell me three things from last lesson, books closed.” On a video call, close the chat and put the notes away first.

Rank 2 · High utility

Spacing instead of cramming

The same material sticks better when it comes back several times with gaps in between, instead of being learned in one go. A practical rule of thumb: space reviews at about 10 to 20 percent of the time left until the test. With a test in 14 days, that means reviewing on day 1, on day 3 or 4, on day 7 or 8, and on day 13.

How to use it: Bring old topics back on purpose instead of ticking off chapters. If you only have a few lessons per week, this is the only way the material will last at all. Leave at least one night between two rounds, because sleep is part of the method.

Rank 3 · Moderate utility

Mixing instead of blocking

Alternate the types of problems (A, then B, then C) instead of having students do ten of the same kind in a row. It feels harder and leads to worse results during practice, but to better results on the test. The reason is simple: only by switching do students learn to recognize which type of problem is in front of them.

How to use it: For worksheets, this is the biggest single lever you have. Tell students beforehand that it will feel harder. Otherwise they read the effort as their own failure, and that hits the students who are already unsure of themselves hardest.

Rank 4 · Moderate utility

Explaining and justifying

Why is that so? How does it connect to what we already know? And when does the rule not apply? Answering questions like these anchors new knowledge to existing knowledge. Researchers call this elaboration and self-explanation.

How to use it: In one-to-one teaching, this is your strongest card. You can follow every answer with a why question without twenty-five other students waiting. No regular class lets you do that as well.

Rank 5 · Design principle

Words and pictures together (dual coding)

A text with a fitting sketch works better than the text alone, but only if the picture does not overload it. Richard Mayer’s multimedia research gives us four rules that instantly improve any material and any screen share:

Cut: Remove decorative images, frames, background music and interesting but unnecessary details. They cost attention without adding anything.
Signal: Show where to look, with an arrow, a circle or a highlight color. One, not five. On screen: use the cursor or annotation tool on purpose.
Don’t double up: Don’t read aloud the same text students are reading. Either picture plus spoken explanation, or picture plus short keywords. Not all three.
Keep it close: Put labels right on the image element, not in a legend underneath. Explain at the same moment as the graphic, not two slides later.

Low utility according to Dunlosky and colleagues

Summarizing, highlighting, rereading and keyword mnemonics. These four have been shown to help the least.

This is the real point

These four are exactly the ones students choose most often on their own. When they study at home, they slip into them almost automatically unless someone steers them elsewhere. If you change only one thing, replace highlighting with self-quizzing.

Tool

Evaluate results for your planning

At the end of the check, every student gets a short result code, for example A38-P27-E21-D14. It contains only the four percentages: no name, no date, no answers. Enter the codes here and you get a profile with concrete takeaways for your teaching.

Result codes, one per line

Optionally with initials in front, separated by a colon: L.M.: A38-P27-E21-D14. Please use initials only, never full names.

Everything is calculated in your browser. No data is sent to a server. “Remember” saves your input only locally on this device, so skip it on a shared computer. The result codes contain no names. As soon as you add initials, your school’s privacy rules for student data apply.

How to read the results, and how not to

Not as an assignment. Nobody gets “visual material” while someone else gets “auditory material”. That is exactly the mistake the research criticizes, and it would take away ways in that students need.

Instead as an order of steps and a basis for conversation. Where do I start with this student so they connect at all? Which format do I reach for first when they get stuck? And in small groups: who complements whom? The content and the goal stay the same in every case.

Reference

The four types in detail

What each type needs, how you recognize it, what slows it down, and where its blind spots are. Meant as a reference while you build materials and as a basis for conversations with parents and colleagues.

The comparison at a glance

	Eagle	Parrot	Squirrel	Dolphin
Channel	visual	auditory	hands-on	communicative
Gets in through	structure, images	language, sound	doing, touching	dialogue, debate
Best format	one-page overview	60-second explanation	card sorting	role swap
Slowed down by	plain blocks of text	silent reading	sitting for a long time	working alone
On screen	good, with a whiteboard	at an advantage	hardest	hard without a second person
Blind spot	designs instead of recalling	sounds surer than they are	movement without content	nods instead of speaking
First step	have them draw from memory	written double-check	shorter blocks	have them explain

How not to use the table

Not as a grid for sorting people. The four columns are options within the same material, not four groups in the room and not four versions of the material. As soon as they turn into fixed categories, the very mistake the research criticizes has happened: a student labeled “visual” who practices less listening comprehension as a result loses a skill they need.

The honest value lies elsewhere: the columns are a checklist for you. If your material has nothing to offer in three of the four columns, you are systematically missing some of your students. And the main type tells you where to start when someone is stuck. No more than that, but no less either.

Evidence

Sources

Everything on this page can be checked here. Where the research is inconclusive, that is stated explicitly.

Learning research

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J. & Willingham, D. T. (2013): Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14(1), 4–58. journals.sagepub.com. Utility ratings for ten learning techniques. High: practice testing, distributed practice. Moderate: elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, interleaving. Low: summarizing, highlighting, rereading.
Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006): Test-Enhanced Learning. Psychological Science 17(3), 249–255. Foundational finding on retrieval practice.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T. & Rohrer, D. (2006): Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 132(3), 354–380. Meta-analysis of more than 300 experiments on the spacing effect.
Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T. & Pashler, H. (2008): Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science 19(11), 1095–1102. The longer something needs to be remembered, the bigger the gap between study sessions should be. Basis for the 7-3-1 plan and its extension.
Diekelmann, S. & Born, J. (2010): The memory function of sleep. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11(2), 114–126. Overview of how sleep consolidates newly learned material.
Rohrer, D. & Taylor, K. (2007 ff.): Research on interleaved practice in math.
Mayer, R. E.: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. Basis for the four design rules (cut, signal, don’t double up, keep it close).
On curiosity as a way in: research on the relationship between knowledge gaps, prior knowledge and information seeking. Making a moderate knowledge gap visible increases willingness to look for the missing information and improves later test performance.

Learning styles: the critical evidence

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. & Bjork, R. (2008): Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3), 105–119. Systematic review of more than 70 studies; no solid basis for learning style matching in the classroom.
Clinton-Lisell, V. & Litzinger, C. (2024): Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology 15. frontiersin.org. 21 studies, 101 effect sizes, 1,712 participants; g = 0.31, but only 26 percent of the measurements show the expected pattern. The authors’ conclusion: too small and too rare for a wide rollout.
Newton, P. M. et al. (2023): The persistence of matching teaching and learning styles. Frontiers in Education 8. frontiersin.org. More than 90 percent of the teachers surveyed consider learning style matching useful.

One-to-one teaching, remote learning and neurodivergence

Education Endowment Foundation: One to one tuition, Teaching and Learning Toolkit. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk. One-to-one tuition is rated as effective; part of the effect is attributed to the close relationship between teacher and learner.
CAST: Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. udlguidelines.cast.org. Framework of the three principles (engagement, representation, action and expression).
Reviews and meta-analyses of school-based interventions for ADHD: the most effective are structured instruction, organizational skills training, environmental adjustments and external supports for executive functions (visible steps, reminders, worked examples, timers). On movement: meta-analyses report improvements in executive functions and working memory through regular physical activity.

Guidelines and classification

Guidelines have an expiry date. Several of those listed here have formally expired and are being revised. They remain the best available summary, but before making firm statements it is worth checking the current version in the AWMF register.

World Health Organization: ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. icd.who.int. Relevant here are 6A02 autism spectrum disorder, 6A05 ADHD, 6B20 obsessive-compulsive disorder and 8A05.0 tic disorders. With ICD-11, the former subcategories of autism were dropped, as was Asperger syndrome as a separate diagnosis.
S3 guideline Autism spectrum disorders in childhood, adolescence and adulthood, part 1: diagnosis (German-language). AWMF register number 028-018. Basis for diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis and the question of when an assessment makes sense. This version has expired and is being revised.
S3 guideline Autism spectrum disorders in childhood, adolescence and adulthood, part 2: therapy (German-language). AWMF register number 028-047, published in April 2021, led by DGKJP and DGPPN. Contains the evaluation of therapy approaches and an explicit warning against approaches without evidence of effectiveness.
Interdisciplinary S3 guideline Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in childhood, adolescence and adulthood (German-language). AWMF register number 028-045, led by DGSPJ, DGKJP and DGPPN. Contains the multimodal treatment approach and recommendations for school-based measures.
S3 guideline Diagnosis and treatment of reading and spelling disorder (German-language). AWMF register number 028-044. Basis for the statement that systematic support built on letter-sound correspondence is effective, and that approaches unrelated to written language are not.
S3 guideline Diagnosis and treatment of dyscalculia (German-language). AWMF register number 028-046, published in March 2018. Gives a prevalence of 3 to 6 percent and notes that ADHD, anxiety and depressive symptoms frequently occur alongside it.
S3 guideline Obsessive-compulsive disorders (German-language). AWMF register number 038-017. Basis for the statement that exposure and response prevention is considered the most effective approach and that reassurance from the people around a person works against the goal of therapy.
European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome: European clinical guidelines for Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders, version 2.0. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2021 and 2022. Part I assessment, part II psychological interventions, part III medication, part IV deep brain stimulation. Psychoeducation is recommended as the first step; the first-choice behavioral approaches are habit reversal training and the more comprehensive form developed from it, as well as exposure and response prevention.
German-Swiss interdisciplinary guideline on developmental coordination disorder (German-language), based on the EACD recommendations. Please check the register number and validity in the AWMF register.
Guidelines on developmental language disorders, diagnosis and therapy, as well as Bishop, D. V. M. et al. (2016 and 2017): CATALISE. PLOS ONE and Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. International consensus on the term developmental language disorder and on the criteria for telling it apart.

Autism: prevalence, experience, communication

Global Burden of Disease Study 2021, autism analysis: The global epidemiology and health burden of the autism spectrum. The Lancet Psychiatry, December 2024. thelancet.com. Estimates about 61.8 million autistic people worldwide in 2021, or roughly one in 127 people. The increase over earlier estimates is mainly explained by changes in methodology. Autism is among the ten leading causes of non-fatal health burden in people under twenty.
World Health Organization: Autism, fact sheet. who.int. Gives about one child in a hundred as a worldwide guide figure. The difference from the GBD estimate is a difference in method, not a contradiction in substance.
Shaw, K. A. et al. (2025): Prevalence and Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 4 and 8 Years, Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 16 Sites, United States, 2022. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 74(2), April 2025. cdc.gov. One in 31 eight-year-old children; boys identified about 3.4 times as often as girls. This is a survey at selected US sites, not a figure for the whole US or for other countries.
Milton, D. E. M. (2012): On the ontological status of autism: the double empathy problem. Disability & Society 27(6), 883–887. The original text on the double empathy concept.
Crompton, C. J. et al. (2020): Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective. Autism 24(7), 1704–1712. Shows that passing on information between autistic people works about as reliably as between non-autistic people, and less well in mixed pairs.
Murray, D., Lesser, M. & Lawson, W. (2005): Attention, monotropism and the diagnostic criteria for autism. Autism 9(2), 139–156. Basis of the monotropism concept and thus of the explanation of why switching costs so much.
Hull, L. et al. (2019): Development and validation of the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 49, 819–833. Assessment tool for masking.
Cage, E. & Troxell-Whitman, Z. (2019): Understanding the reasons, contexts and costs of camouflaging for autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 49, 1899–1911. Documents the link between masking and psychological distress.
Raymaker, D. M. et al. (2020): Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood 2(2), 132–143. The first systematic description of autistic burnout, developed together with autistic people. Especially relevant when students avoid school.
Lai, M.-C. et al.: Research on gender differences on the autism spectrum and on later identification in girls and women. Basis for the section on masking and delayed diagnosis.

ADHD: mechanisms and prevalence

Barkley, R. A.: Research on the model of impaired behavioral inhibition and self-regulation. Basis for the description of time perception, working memory and the path from intention to action.
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S.: Research on delay aversion. Explains why rewards in the distant future have practically no effect and why immediate feedback makes such a difference.
Meta-analyses of the worldwide prevalence of ADHD in children and adolescents. Roughly eight percent, with considerable variation depending on the survey method.
Robert Koch Institute: KiGGS, German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents. kiggs-studie.de. Basis for the parent-reported diagnosis rate in Germany.
Reviews of the heritability of ADHD from twin and family studies. It lies in the range of 60 to 80 percent, making ADHD one of the most strongly genetically influenced areas of child and adolescent psychiatry.
Research on later identification of ADHD in girls. The predominantly inattentive type is noticed less often, and the diagnostic criteria were originally developed largely with boys.

Reading, math, anxiety

Stanovich, K. E. (1986): Matthew effects in reading. Reading Research Quarterly 21(4), 360–407. Classic evidence that reading gaps widen on their own without support.
Wolf, M. & Bowers, P. G. (1999): The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology 91(3), 415–438. Basis for the distinction between phonological processing and naming speed.
OpenDyslexic, a free typeface by Abbie Gonzalez under the SIL Open Font License. opendyslexic.org. On effectiveness: Wery, J. J. & Diliberto, J. A. (2017): The effect of a specialized dyslexia font, OpenDyslexic, on reading rate and accuracy. Annals of Dyslexia 67, as well as Kuster, S. M. et al. (2018) and Marinus, E. et al. (2016). These studies find no reading advantage over ordinary typefaces. What helps is wider letter and word spacing, not the shape of the letters.
Reviews of the effectiveness of colored overlays and tinted lenses for reading difficulties. The evidence does not hold up to methodological scrutiny. Pure eye movement and perception training without a link to written language is not effective either.
Ashcraft, M. H. et al.: Research on math anxiety and how it interacts with working memory and math performance. Basis for the recommendation to remove time pressure.
Reviews of anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence and the role of avoidance. Basis for the statement that avoidance brings short-term relief but strengthens anxiety in the long term, and that returning in small, agreed steps works better than an open-ended break.

Giftedness

Assouline, S. G. et al.: A Nation Empowered (2015), follow-up report to A Nation Deceived (2004), Belin-Blank Center, University of Iowa. Comprehensive compilation of the findings on acceleration, that is, grade skipping and taking some classes in higher grades.
Research on twice-exceptionality, that is, giftedness occurring together with a learning or developmental disorder. Basis for the observation that each can mask the other and that average grades can be the result.

Attitude, language and participation

Kenny, L. et al. (2016): Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism 20(4), 442–462. Basis for the note that many autistic people prefer the term autistic person.
Botha, M. et al.: Research on the language used about autism in professional texts and its effects on autistic people.
Nicolaidis, C. et al.: Research on participatory research with autistic people. Background for the principle of not just researching the people affected, but involving them.

How to read this list

Where a register number, a year and page numbers are given, the reference can be checked directly. Where only authors and a topic area are named, the entry summarizes a line of research rather than a single paper. Statements based on these are worded with matching caution in the text. Prevalence figures vary with definition, cutoff and survey method. If you use a figure in a conversation, present it as a rough order of magnitude and say where it comes from.

Last updated: October 2026. This page is a teaching tool. It does not replace support planning, diagnostic assessment, therapy or legal advice. What counts is always the regulations and curricula that apply to you and the agreements with your school, your district or school authority and specialist services.