Disfluent difficulties are not desirable difficulties: the (lack of) effect of Sans Forgetica on memory

Taylor, Andrea S.; Sanson, Mevagh; Burnell, Ryan; Wade, Kimberley A.; Garry, Maryanne

doi:10.1080/09658211.2020.1758726

Cited by 22 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As indicated by the growing literature showing benefits of pretesting and productive failure, researchers are increasingly affirming the pedagogical value of generating errors in educational contexts. More broadly, the finding that generating errors enhances learning aligns with the observation that learning techniques that are more errorprone or challenging, at least initially, can be ultimately more effective than comparatively error-free and easier techniques, although more effortful processing may not always facilitate learning (e.g., Geller et al, 2020;Pan, Tajran, et al, 2019;Taylor et al, 2020). Bjork (1994) described such learning techniques (e.g., retrieval practice and distributing out learning over time) as "desirable difficulties" (see also Pan & Bjork, in press;Schmidt & Bjork, 1992).…”

Section: Generating Errors Benefits Learningmentioning

confidence: 54%

Learning from errors: students’ and instructors’ practices, attitudes, and beliefs

Pan

Sana

Samani

et al. 2020

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In some educational contexts, such as during assessments, it is essential to avoid errors. In other contexts, however, generating an error can foster valuable learning opportunities. For instance, generating errors can improve memory for correct answers. In two surveys conducted at three large public universities in North America, we investigated undergraduate students' and instructors' awareness of the pedagogical benefits of generating errors, as well as related practices, attitudes, and beliefs. Surveyed topics included the incorporation of errors into learning activities, opinions about the consequences of studying errors, and approaches to feedback. Many students had an aversion towards making errors during learning and did not use opportunities to engage in errorful generation, yet studied or analysed errors when they occurred. Many instructors had a welcoming attitude towards errors that occur during learning, yet varied in providing students with resources that facilitate errorful generation. Overall, these findings reveal the prevalence of an ambivalent approach to errors: Students and instructors avoid generating errors but prioritise learning from them when they occur. These results have important implications for the implementation of pretesting, productive failure, and other error-focused learning techniques in educational contexts.

show abstract

Section: Generating Errors Benefits Learningmentioning

confidence: 54%

Learning from errors: students’ and instructors’ practices, attitudes, and beliefs

Pan

Sana

Samani

et al. 2020

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the first conceptual replication of the Sans Forgetica effect (N = 882 across 4 experiments), Taylor et al (2020) found that while Sans Forgetica was perceived as more disfluent by participants (Experiment 1) there was no evidence that Sans Forgetica yielded a mnemonic boost in cued recall with highly related word pairs (Experiment 2) compared to a fluent typeface or when learning simple prose passages (Experiments 3-4). Extending these findings, Geller et al (2020) conducted three preregistered experiments (N = 820) and found, similar to Taylor et al (2020), Sans Forgetica does not enhance learning for weakly related word pairs (Experiment 1), complex prose passages (Experiment 2), regardless of final test format (Experiment 3). Taken together, this amounts to two independent replications and well over 1500 participants making the compelling argument that there is little, if any, evidence that Sans Forgetica qualifies as a desirable difficulty.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Does the same hold true for Sans Forgetica? Two recent studies, Taylor et al (2020) and Geller et al (2020), set out to examine whether Sans Forgetica is really desirable for learning. In the first conceptual replication of the Sans Forgetica effect (N = 882 across 4 experiments), Taylor et al (2020) found that while Sans Forgetica was perceived as more disfluent by participants (Experiment 1) there was no evidence that Sans Forgetica yielded a mnemonic boost in cued recall with highly related word pairs (Experiment 2) compared to a fluent typeface or when learning simple prose passages (Experiments 3-4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two recent studies, Taylor et al (2020) and Geller et al (2020), set out to examine whether Sans Forgetica is really desirable for learning. In the first conceptual replication of the Sans Forgetica effect (N = 882 across 4 experiments), Taylor et al (2020) found that while Sans Forgetica was perceived as more disfluent by participants (Experiment 1) there was no evidence that Sans Forgetica yielded a mnemonic boost in cued recall with highly related word pairs (Experiment 2) compared to a fluent typeface or when learning simple prose passages (Experiments 3-4). Extending these findings, Geller et al (2020) conducted three preregistered experiments (N = 820) and found, similar to Taylor et al (2020), Sans Forgetica does not enhance learning for weakly related word pairs (Experiment 1), complex prose passages (Experiment 2), regardless of final test format (Experiment 3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mixed findings reported across these three empirical reports suggest mnemonic benefit of Sans Forgetica may be fickle, with positive effects potentially bounded by specific conditions. Probing into the design features of Eskenazi and Nix (2020), one critical difference between their design and a recent failure to replicate (Geller et al, 2020) is testing expectancy (but see Taylor et al, 2020). 1 Eskenazi and Nix (2020) did not tell participants about the upcoming orthographic and semantic tests whereas participants in Geller et al (2020) were explicitly told their memory was going to be assessed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is This Going to Be on The Test? Test Expectancy Moderates the Disfluency Effect with Sans Forgetica

Geller¹,

Peterson²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work examining the mnemonic effects of Sans Forgetica have yielded discrepant findings; some research finds support for the idea that the novel, disfluent typeface improves memory while other research does not. To explore this discrepancy, the current study examined a boundary condition that determines when Sans Forgetica is and is not beneficial to learning. Specifically, we examined whether knowledge about an upcoming test (high test expectancy) versus not (low test expectancy) helps clarify when mnemonic benefits arise and when they do not. In Experiment 1 (preregistered, N = 231), we found that Sans Forgetica is a desirable difficulty, but only under the right circumstances. That is, Sans Forgetica was in fact perceptually disfluent as evinced by lower JOLs and increased study times. However, we observed improved memory on an old/new recognition test only when there was no expectation of a final test. When participants expected a test, the effect disappeared. In Experiment 2 (N = 116), we conceptually replicated the results of Experiment 1 using a cued recall test. Caution should be taken in interpreting these results, however. Not only were the effect sizes small, but low testing expectancy may not be realistically achievable in actual educational contexts. Echoing our prior arguments, students wanting to remember more and forget less should stick to other, more empirically supported desirable difficulties shown to enhance memory.

show abstract

When color coding backfires: A guidance reversal effect when learning with realistic visualizations

Skulmowski

2021

Educ Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital learning increasingly makes use of realistic visualizations, although realism can be demanding for learners. Color coding is a popular way of helping learners understand visualizations and has been found to aid in learning with detailed visualizations. However, previous research has shown that color coding must not always be an effective aid, and that it even may reduce retention when used with simple visualizations. This study assessed whether the presence of color coding in learning tests has an effect after having learned using a detailed visualization that either featured color cues or one that did not. The results indicate that color coding helps learners the most if the learning tests also feature color coding. Importantly, learning with color-coded visualizations and being tested without color cues leads to the worst results in retention and transfer tests. Regarding transfer, color coding in the testing visualization boosts performance regardless of the presence of color cues in the learning phase. The results of this study challenge popular perspectives aiming at optimizing learning by removing potential sources of difficulty. Depending on the learning test, it may be more effective to keep a certain level of difficulty in the learning task when learning with digital media.

show abstract

Disfluent difficulties are not desirable difficulties: the (lack of) effect of Sans Forgetica on memory

Cited by 22 publications

References 30 publications

Learning from errors: students’ and instructors’ practices, attitudes, and beliefs

Learning from errors: students’ and instructors’ practices, attitudes, and beliefs

Is This Going to Be on The Test? Test Expectancy Moderates the Disfluency Effect with Sans Forgetica

When color coding backfires: A guidance reversal effect when learning with realistic visualizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About