KEY THEME: Psychological science relies on empirical evidence and adapts as new data develop.

The key integrative theme for this chapter is “Psychological science relies on empirical evidence and adapts as new data develop.” Like the Ethics theme, this one applies to the work of all psychologists. Although it seems mostly related to psychologists who are actively conducting research, it also includes psychologists who are consuming research, including health service psychologists, teachers, and psychology students.

First, let’s break this theme down into its two components:

1. Relies on empirical evidence
2. Adapts as new data develop

Psychological science relies on empirical evidence

Western psychology relies heavily on quantitative research (using numbers and statistics) and the scientific approach to build its theoretical foundations. There are three basic features to using the scientific approach.

1. Research strives to be systematic – As Lilliard suggested, researchers must be organized and consistent in their methods of inquiry so they can trust their results.
2. Research is focused on an empirical question –  In the pretend play example, the question was “is pretend play related to social skill development?” Empirical questions can be answered through observation and experience.
3. Research creates public knowledge – Psychologists, like other scientists, publish their work. This usually means writing an article in a peer-reviewed professional journal targeted for other scholars. The article explains their research question in the context of previous research, describes the methods used to answer the question, and presents their results and conclusions.

Psychological science adapts as new data develop

Psychological knowledge is mostly developed through theories. Theories are a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed behaviors we see in the world – and they are often in a continuous cycle of development and testing. Theories are typically based on multiple studies conducted by different researchers over many years. No one study can lead to full understanding – we must consider different contexts and populations using a variety of methods. Additionally, despite researchers’ best efforts, sometimes methods are flawed and/or conclusions are incomplete. Publishing the research allows others in the scientific community to contribute to the conversation, detect and correct errors, and develop new ways of answering the question. Over time, theories become more refined and accurate.

As we can see in Figure 4.1, knowledge that is built through the scientific process often changes over time.

Psychological scientists ask empirical questions and make predictions (hypotheses) derived from theories and then test those hypotheses. If the results are consistent with what was expected, then the theory is supported. If the results are not consistent, then the theory might need modification and further studies are needed.

Theories are too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory. A hypothesis is a testable prediction. For example, in a 2014 study by Mueller and Oppenheimer,^[2] researchers hypothesized that when learners take notes by hand, it leads to better learning than taking notes on a laptop. Then they set out to test their prediction by collecting and analyzing data. They found support for their hypothesis, which sent a ripple through the education world. Following this, other researchers set out to replicate these results – some in controlled research labs, and others in live classrooms.^[3] Some results suggested that the way notes are taken is less important than how deeply the information is processed. This further contributes to the theories about how people learn. This is good news for folks who struggle with physically writing – they may be able to learn just as well as someone who is writing longhand, as long as they process the information in a deep way and avoid distraction.

Adding an additional layer to this is the context in which theories are developed and research is conducted. Consider technology such as predictive text and tools to edit and organize your typed notes. Since the time the Mueller & Oppenheimer studies were conducted, technology has rapidly advanced, and the ways that students interact with technology and note-taking has changed quite a bit. Although the results of the 2014 study are considered robust, they may not be fully generalizable to today’s learners. This is why psychological science must continually re-visit theories and adapt as new data develop. A recently published meta-analysis (a method where the results of many studies are aggregated) suggests that handwritten notes are superior to typed notes for learning, but calls for more research.^[4]

 The debate around “laptop versus longhand” is not quite settled. Perhaps this is no longer the most relevant question, however. Maybe we should be asking how technology and handwritten notes interact  for optimal learning. The effect of instructor-created supplements such as slides and lecture outlines has not been studied, nor has the unique characteristics such as note-taking skill and motivation. Further, many college instructors no longer rely on lecture + student note-taking as the primary activity in class. Student-driven discussion, small group activities, and physical movement are additional forms of learning. As with most evidence-based decisions, when instructors make classroom policies or students choose note-taking modality, they must consider the research as well as teaching style, learning goals, accessibility, and other individual differences in how humans learn.