Disfluency shows no negative effects on learning; the common-sense hypothesis that it harms learning can be rejected¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The authors' impression is that the common-sense hypothesis that disfluency has negative effects on learning can be soundly rejected, though they have not carried out the necessary meta-analysis. → 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

q1 · i? · review · r2

The authors' interpretive claim in the commentary's discussion, offered as an impression rather than a formal meta-analysis. They argue the lack of negative effects, alongside the lack of positive effects, suggests what matters for comprehension and storage happens after perceptual encoding.

"We have not carried out the necessary meta-analysis, but our impression is that the common-sense hypothesis that disfluency has negative effects can be soundly rejected."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The null effect of the disfluency × WMC interaction on transfer replicated the primary study's null finding, with both studies showing negative coefficients
• Working memory capacity predicts retention performance only in the disfluency condition, with higher WMC yielding better retention
• Working memory capacity predicts comprehension performance only in the disfluency condition, with higher WMC yielding better comprehension
• Disfluency and WMC × disfluency did not affect extraneous cognitive load, contrary to hypotheses