Matching Learning Style to Instructional Method: Effects on Comprehension

121 college-educated adults; 68 (37 auditory, 31 visual-word) could be categorically classified

College-educated adults, United States

The first study built explicitly to the Pashler et al. (2008) specification. Learning style was measured with a standardised adult inventory (Building Excellence); verbal comprehension aptitude was measured in both listening and reading form using GORT-4 passages; participants were then RANDOMLY assigned to receive the same nonfiction material as a digital audiobook or as e-text, and all took the same 48-item written comprehension test immediately and again 2 weeks later. Note that 53 of 121 participants could not be categorically classified into a style at all, which is itself informative about the construct.

No style x instructional-method interaction on either immediate or delayed comprehension. On the aptitude side the interaction was F(1,66) = 0.34, p > .05: the visual-word group scored HIGHER than the auditory group on both listening and reading aptitude (a main effect, eta-squared = 0.09), which is exactly the pattern Pashler et al. label unacceptable evidence. The correlation between auditory learning-style preference and listening comprehension aptitude was NEGATIVE, r = -.31, p < .01, the opposite sign to the meshing prediction.

Low. Assignment to instructional mode was randomised, and the target quantity is an interaction, so stable heritable differences in verbal ability cannot produce or erase it. The observed main effect (visual-preference group better at everything) is consistent with preference tracking ability.