Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Kühl, Tim ^a   Eitel, Alexander ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^b KNOWLEDGE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84960418053     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-016-9154-x     Document Type: Editorial

References (45)

1. 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.
2. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199–209. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_2.
3. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. E. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Boston: The MIT Press.
4. 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.
5. Bjork, R. A., & Yue, C. L. (2016). Is disfluency desirable? Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-016-9156-8.
6. Dickinson, C. V. M. & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1991). Simulated visual impairment: Effects on text comprehension and reading speed. Clinical Vision Sciences, 6, 301–308.
7. 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.
8. Dunlosky, J., & Mueller, M. L. (2016). Recommendations for exploring the disfluency hypothesis toward establishing whether perceptually degrading materials impacts performance. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-016-9155-9.
9. Dunlosky, J. & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003.
10. Eitel, A. & Kühl, T. (2015). Effects of disfluency and test expectancy on learning with text. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9145-3
11. 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. doi:10.1002/acp.3004.
12. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42. doi:10.1257/089533005775196732.
13. French, M. M. J., Blood, A., Bright, N. D., Futak, D., Grohmann, M. J., Hasthorpe, A., et al. (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.
14. 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.
15. Gao, X., Stine-Morrow, E. A., Noh, S. R., & Eskew Jr., R. T. (2011). Visual noise disrupts conceptual integration in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 83–88. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0014-4.
16. Halin, N., Marsh, J. E., Hellman, A., Hellström, I., & Sörqvist, P. (2014). A shield against distraction. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 31–36. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.01.003.
17. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover (Original work published 1890).
18. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107–118. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107.
19. Kornell, N., Rhodes, M. G., Castel, A. D., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The ease-of-processing heuristic and stability bias: Dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgment. Psychological Science, 22, 787–794. doi:10.1177/0956797611407929.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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, 609–616. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.609.
25. Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T., Guevara Pinto, J. D., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J., Pennycook, G., Ackerman, R., Thompson, V., Schuldt, J. P.(2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 16–30. doi:10.1037/xge0000049.
26. Miele, D. B. & Molden, D. C. (2010). Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 535–557. doi:10.1037/a0019745.
27. Miele, D. B., Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2013). Children's naive theories of intelligence influence their metacognitive judgments. Child Development, 84, 1879–1886. doi:10.1111/cdev.12101.
28. Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007.
29. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In G.H. Bower (Ed)., The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 26 (pp. 125–173). New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
30. Rhodes, M. G. & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 615–625. doi:10.1037/a0013684.
31. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.
32. Rosner, T. M., Davis, H., & Milliken, B. (2015). Perceptual blurring and recognition memory: A desirable difficulty effect revealed. Acta Psychologica, 160, 11–22. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.06.006.
33. 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
34. Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2011). Boundary conditions and constraints of the modality effect. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 211–220. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000046.
35. Serra, M. J. & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Effective implementation of metacognition. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 278–298). New York: Psychology Press.
36. Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2015). Generalizing screen inferiority - does the medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief tasks? Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9150-6
37. Song, H. & Schwarz, N. (2008). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26, 791–799. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791.
38. Strukelj, A., Scheiter, K., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2015). Exploring the lack of disfluency effect: evidence from eye movements. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9146-2.
39. Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 973–978. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0114-9.
40. Susser, J. A., Mulligan, N. W., & Besken, M. (2013). The effects of list composition and perceptual fluency on judgments of learning (JOLs). Memory & Cognition, 41, 1000–1011. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0323-8.
41. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205.
42. Thiede, K. W. & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024–1037. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024.
43. 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.
44. Weltman, D. & Eakin, M. (2014). Incorporating unusual fonts and planned mistakes in study materials to increase business student focus and retention. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 15, 156–165. doi:10.1287/ited.2014.0130.
45. 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 & Cognition, 41, 229–241. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8.