Disfluency does not automatically elicit effortful processing; test expectancy improves retention and transfer while disfluency has no effect¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Eitel and Kuhl's experiment, high test expectancy improved both retention and transfer scores, but the disfluency manipulation had no effect. → Bjork 2016

Evidence¶

Bjork 2016¶

Bjork, R. A., & Yue, C. L. (2016). Commentary: Is disfluency desirable? Metacognition Learning, 11, 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9156-8

q3 · i? · review · r2

Eitel and Kuhl's experiment (as summarized in this commentary) had participants read a passage in fluent or disfluent font with static images, with half told to expect a test. Test expectancy improved retention and transfer; disfluency showed no effect.

"Eitel and Kuhl found that while high text expectancy led to improved scores on both retention and transfer tests, the disfluency manipulation had no effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• All 13 special-issue studies failed to show overall better performance due to disfluency — a broader claim this one bears on
• Disfluency increased study times without improving performance, suggesting time was spent deciphering text rather than processing contents more deeply — related
• Medium moderated disfluency effects on reasoning: disfluent text fostered calibration and performance on screen but not on paper — related
• Low to medium disfluency does not harm learning and sometimes descriptively improves it, though the effect is unstable — reports the opposite