Eye tracking shows fluency does not affect recall but learners spend more time on later sentences of degraded text¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Strukelj et al. found fluency had no impact on recall, but learners spent more time on later sentences of degraded text than on earlier sentences. → 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? · causal · r?

Strukelj, Scheiter, Nystrom, and Holmqvist used eye tracking to measure how learners interacted with fluent versus degraded expository text (as summarized in this commentary). Recall was unaffected by fluency, but reading time increased on later sentences of degraded text.

"They found that while fluency had no impact on recall, learners spent more time on later sentences of degraded text than on earlier sentences."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Disfluency is not clearly defined across the literature, hindering replication and precise measurement — a broader claim this one bears on
• Any positive effects of responding to disfluency are most likely to appear on later perceptual tasks, not content recall — related
• Working memory capacity moderated disfluency effects in one study but not another — related