W hile it is hypothesized that providing instruction based on individuals' preferred learning styles im proves learning (i.e., reading for visual learners and listening for auditory learners, also referred to as the meshing hypothesis), after a critical review o f the literature Pashler, M cDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2008) concluded that this hypothesis lacks em pirical evidence and subsequently described the experi m ental design needed to evaluate the m eshing hypothesis. Following the design o f Pashler et al., we em pirically investigated the effect o f learning style preference with college-educated adults, specifically as applied to (a) verbal com prehension aptitude (listening or reading) and (b) learning based on mode of instruction (digital audiobook or e-text). First, participants' auditory and visual learning style preferences were established based on a standardized adult learning style inventory. Participants were then given a verbal com prehension aptitude test in both oral and written forms. Results failed to show a statistically significant relationship between learning style preference (auditory, visual word) and learning aptitude (listening com prehension, reading com prehension). Second, participants were random ly assigned to 1 of 2 groups that received the same instructional m aterial from a nonfiction book, but each in a different instructional m ode (digital audiobook, e-text), and then com pleted a written com prehension test im m e diately and after 2 weeks. Results dem onstrated no statistically significant relationship between learning style preference (auditory, visual word) and instructional m ethod (audiobook, e-text) for either im m ediate or delayed com prehension tests. Taken together, the results o f our investigation failed to statistically support the m eshing hypothesis either for verbal com prehension aptitude or learning based on m ode of instruction (digital audiobook, e-text).

Teachers commonly categorize students as visual or auditory learners. Despite a lack of empirical evidence, teaching to a student's perceived learning style remains common practice in education (Pashler et al., 2009). Having conducted an extensive review of the literature, Pashler et al. (2009) noted, "...very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education" (p. 105). Rogowsky et al. (2015) published the first study following the experimental design prescribed by Pashler et al. Focusing specifically on the visual/auditory dichotomy, Rogowsky et al. (2015) examined the extent to which learning style predicts comprehension and retention based on mode of instruction. Their study has been noted as "The only study located through the systematic literature search across six different databases and the screening of more than 1000 records that was totally aligned with Pashler's criteria" (Aslaksen and Loras, 2018, p. 3). The caveat to the 2015 study is that it was conducted with adult learners. The current study uses the same design and methodology as its predecessor, but on a school-aged population, making it the first of its kind. Consistent with earlier findings with adults, results failed to find a significant relationship between auditory or visual learning style preference and comprehension. Fifth graders with a visual learning style scored higher than those with an auditory learning style on listening and reading comprehension measures. As such, and counter to current educational beliefs and practices, teachers may actually be doing a disservice to students by using resources to determine their learning style and then tailoring the curriculum to match that learning style.

With advancing technology, there is increasing interest in differences between listening versus reading comprehension or doing both simultaneously. Ninety-one participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups that received the same instructional material (the preface and a chapter from a non-fiction book), but each in a different input modality (digital audiobook, e-text, dual modality). After completing the material, participants took the same comprehension test in written form to establish both immediate comprehension (Time 1) and 2-week retention (Time 2). No statistically significant differences were found for any analyses pertaining to effects of the three different instructional conditions on comprehension at Time 1 or Time 2. Additional analyses showed that both males and females in each condition recalled an equal amount of information, regardless of whether they listened to an audiobook, read from an electronic tablet, or both listened and read simultaneously (dual modality).