Effects of disfluency and test expectancy on learning with text

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 107-121

  Eitel, Alexander ^a   Kühl, Tim ^b  

^a KNOWLEDGE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Desirable difficulties; Disfluency; Learning with text; Reading ability; Test expectancy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947086873     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-015-9145-3     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564.
2. Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 569–576. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569.
3. Ball, B. H., Klein, K. N., & Brewer, G. A. (2014). Processing fluency mediates the influence of perceptual information on monitoring learning of educationally relevant materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 336–348. doi:10.1037/xap0000023.
4. Bertsch, S., Pesta, B. J., Wiscott, R., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The generation effect: a meta-analytic review. Memory and Cognition, 35, 201–210. doi:10.3758/BF03193441.
5. Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). New York: Worth Publishers.
6. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823.
7. Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R. F., & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for cognition:Ascale measuring engagement and happiness in cognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147–154.
8. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, S. E. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X.
9. Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118, 114–118. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012.
10. Eitel, A., Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Disfluency meets cognitive load in multimedia learning: does harder-to-read mean better-to-understand? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 488–501. doi:10.1002/acp.3004.
11. French, M. M. J., Blood, A., Bright, N. D., Futak, D., Grohmann, M. J., Hasthorpe, A., Heritage, J., Poland, R. L., Reece, S., & Tabor, J. (2013). Changing fonts in education: how the benefits vary with ability and dyslexia. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 301–304. doi:10.1080/00220671.2012.736430.
12. Gao, X., Levinthal, B. R., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2012). The effects of ageing and visual noise on conceptual integration during sentence reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1833–1847. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.674146.
13. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371.
14. Guenther, R. K. (2012). Does the processing fluency of a syllabus affect the forecasted grade and course difficulty? Psychological Reports, 110, 946–954. doi:10.2466/01.11.28.PR0.110.3.946-954.
15. Kühl, T. & Eitel, A. (in press). Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition and Learning. (this issue).
16. Kühl, T., Eitel, A., Damnik, G., & Körndle, H. (2014a). The impact of disfluency, pacing, and students’ need for cognition on learning with multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 189–198. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.004.
17. Kühl, T., Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014b). A call for an unbiased search for moderators in disfluency research: reply to Oppenheimer and Alter (2014). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 805–806. doi:10.1002/acp.3030.
18. Lehmann, J., Goussios, C., & Seufert, T. (2015). Working memory capacity and disfluency effect: An aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9149-z.
19. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239–252. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.239.
20. Magreehan, D. A., Serra, M. J., Schwartz, N. H., & Narciss, S. (2015). Further boundary conditions for the effects of perceptual disfluency on judgments of learning. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9147-1. (this issue).
21. Maki, R. H., Foley, J. M., Kajer, W. K., Thompson, R. C., & Willert, M. G. (1990). Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 609. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.609.
22. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.377.
23. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). The use of adjunct displays to facilitate comprehension of causal relationships in expository text. Instructional Science, 37, 65–86. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9036-3.
25. McDaniel, M. A., Blischak, D. M., & Challis, B. (1994). The effects of test expectancy on processing and memory of prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 230–248. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1019.
26. Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Robin, L., & Innes-Ker, Å. H. (2002). Adult attachment and the perception of facial expression of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 419–433. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.419.
27. Oppenheimer, D. M., & Alter, A. L. (2014). The search for moderators in disfluency research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 502–504. doi:10.1002/acp.3023.
28. Richland, L. E., Bjork, R. A., Finley, J. R., & Linn, M. C. (2005). Linking cognitive science to education: Generation and interleaving effects. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual conference of the cognitive science society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., & Schwede, A. (2015). Fortune is fickle: Null-effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9151-5.
30. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647.
31. Schneider, W., Schlagmüller, M. & Ennemoser, M. (2007). Lesegeschwindigkeits- und verständnistest für die Klassenstufen 6–12 (LGVT 6–12) [Reading speed and comprehension test for class levels 6–12]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
32. Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do. Psychological Science, 19, 986–988. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x.
33. Strukelj, A., Scheiter, K., Nyström, M., Oliva, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2015). Exploring the lack of a disfluency effect: Evidence from eye movements. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9146-2. (this issue).
34. Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 973–978. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0114-9.
35. Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Expectation of a final cumulative test enhances long-term retention. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1007–1013. doi:10.3758/BF03193473.
36. Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 264–273. doi:10.1348/135910710X510494.
37. Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128, 237–251. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012.
38. Van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087. doi:10.3758/BF03206376.
39. Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: the influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory and Cognition, 41, 229–241. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8.