Working memory capacity predicts comprehension performance only in the disfluency condition, with higher WMC yielding better comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the disfluency condition, WMC was a significant positive predictor of comprehension performance, while in the fluency condition it was not. → Janina Lehmann 2015 q2 i? The learning material × WMC interaction term significantly predicted comprehension performance. → Janina Lehmann 2015 (2)

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 · r2

Regression analysis for comprehension in the same randomized experiment with 47 university students. In the disfluency condition WMC significantly predicted comprehension: "The higher the WMC, the better the comprehension performance with the disfluent text."

"As predicted in Hypothesis 2b, for the disfluency condition the WMC was a significant predictor for comprehension ( β=10.66, t(46)=2.86, p<.05): The higher the WMC, the better the comprehension performance with the disfluent text."

Janina Lehmann 2015 (2)¶

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 · r2

Same regression model for comprehension: the learning material × WMC interaction term was significant, "β=12.62, t(46)=2.33, p=.0 3", confirming the hypothesized aptitude-treatment interaction for comprehension.

"As predicted in Hypothesis 2, the interaction term was significant in the prediction of comprehension performance ( β=12.62, t(46)=2.33, p=.0 3)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Disfluency shows no negative effects on learning; the common-sense hypothesis that it harms learning can be rejected
• Working memory capacity predicts retention performance only in the disfluency condition, with higher WMC yielding better retention — related
• Working memory capacity moderated disfluency effects in one study but not another — 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
• In e-learning text comprehension, higher working memory and lower self-reported navigation behavior predict better comprehension — related
• Across the four existing experiments on WMC moderation of disfluency, results are inconsistent: one finds the effect restricted to high-span, one to low-span, and two find null moderation — related
• Disfluency and WMC × disfluency did not affect extraneous cognitive load, contrary to hypotheses — related
• Higher working memory capacity was associated with better final test performance on advanced materials — related
• Disfluency benefits retention and comprehension only for learners with high working memory capacity — a broader claim this one bears on