Disfluency and WMC × disfluency did not affect extraneous cognitive load, contrary to hypotheses¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Contrary to Hypothesis 6, neither disfluency nor the disfluency × WMC interaction significantly predicted extraneous cognitive load. → Janina Lehmann 2015

Evidence¶

Janina Lehmann 2015¶

Janina Lehmann, Christina Goussios, Tina Seufert. (2015). Working memory capacity and disfluency effect: an aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Metacognition Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9149-z

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Regression analyses of subjective ECL ratings after learning and after testing in the 47-student experiment found no significant effects; the regression models were only marginally significant (p=.06).

"In contrast to our hypotheses, neither disfluency nor the interaction term disfluency × WMC were significant predictors for ECL."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Disfluency shows no negative effects on learning; the common-sense hypothesis that it harms learning can be rejected
• Seductive detail amount did not increase extraneous cognitive load in either study — related
• Disfluency and WMC × disfluency did not affect intrinsic or germane cognitive load — related
• The null effect of the disfluency × WMC interaction on transfer replicated the primary study's null finding, with both studies showing negative coefficients — related
• In a pre-registered direct replication (N = 96), the disfluency × WMC interaction did not significantly predict retention, failing to replicate Lehmann et al. (2016) — related
• Working memory capacity predicts comprehension performance only in the disfluency condition, with higher WMC yielding better comprehension — related
• Neither disfluency nor distinctiveness affected memory across three experiments with alien-list stimuli — related