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

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 retention performance, while in the fluency condition it was not. → Janina Lehmann 2015 q2 i? The learning material × WMC interaction term significantly predicted retention 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 in a randomized experiment with 47 university students (24 fluency, 23 disfluency) learning a text on time zones. In the disfluency condition WMC significantly predicted retention, "The higher the WMC, the better the retention performance with the disfluent text."

"As predicted in Hypothesis 1b, for the disfluency condition the WMC was a significant predictor for retention ( β=10.6 6, t(44)=2.86, p=.01): The higher the WMC, the better the retention 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 retention: the learning material × WMC interaction term was significant, "β=11.66, t(44)=2.46, p=.02", supporting the hypothesized aptitude-treatment interaction.

"As predicted in Hypothesis 1, the interaction term was significant in the prediction of retention performance (β=11.66, t(44)=2.46, p=.02)."

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 comprehension performance only in the disfluency condition, with higher WMC yielding better comprehension — 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) — reports the opposite
• In e-learning text comprehension, higher working memory and lower self-reported navigation behavior predict better comprehension — 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