Is There a (Dis-)Fluency Effect in Learning With Handwritten Instructional Texts? Evidence From Three Studies

Abstract

The disfluency effect postulates that intentionally inserted desirable difficulties can have a beneficial effect on learning. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing discussion about the emergence of this effect since studies could not replicate this effect or even found opposite effects. To clarify boundary effects of the disfluency effect and to investigate potential social effects of disfluency operationalized through handwritten material, three studies (N1 = 97; N2 = 102; N3 = 103) were carried out. In all three experiments, instructional texts were manipulated in terms of disfluency (computerized font vs. handwritten font). Learning outcomes and cognitive load were measured in all experiments. Furthermore, metacognitive variables (Experiment 2 and 3) and social presence (Experiment 3) were measured. Results were ambiguous, indicating that element interactivity (complexity or connectedness of information within the learning material) of the learning material is a boundary condition that determines the effects of disfluency. When element interactivity is low, disfluency had a positive effect on learning outcomes and germane processes. When element interactivity increases, disfluency had negative impacts on learning efficiency (Experiment 2 and 3) and extraneous load (Experiment 3). In contrast to common explanations of the disfluency effect, a disfluent font had no metacognitive benefits. Social processes did not influence learning with disfluent material as well.

The Relation Between Perceived Mental Effort, Monitoring Judgments, and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

“…To perform the meta-analysis, we collected the Pearson's correlation coefficient between perceived mental effort, monitoring judgments, and learning outcomes as reported by other researchers. If a study measured various types of the variables of interest such as ease of learning and JOLs (e.g., Beege et al, 2021), we chose the type that was most commonly used in other studies, which were JOLs. We coded between-subjects conditions as independent samples (e.g., in the study by Baars et al (2014) the learners in the self-assessment training condition and learners in the no self-assessment training condition were coded as separate samples) and coded all variables on the task level (i.e., each data point reflected a group of people that carried out the same task).…”

Improving e-learning websites: the role of menu depth and metacognitive support

“…As an indicator for metacognitive monitoring, this accuracy between monitoring and performance can be measured with judgment of learning scales (JOL; Dunlosky and Thiede, 2013). For example, Beege et al (2021) asked learners to think about how well they will perform in a learning test that will deal with the previously learnt information. Another prominent measure is the retrospective confidence (RC; Dinsmore and Parkinson, 2013).…”