Is the perceptual disfluency effect moderated by working memory capacity? Direct replication of Lehmann et al. (2016)

IF 3.9 2区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Metacognition and Learning Pub Date : 2023-12-30 DOI:10.1007/s11409-023-09366-7

{"title":"Is the perceptual disfluency effect moderated by working memory capacity? Direct replication of Lehmann et al. (2016)","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11409-023-09366-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> According to an aptitude-treatment interaction experiment (Lehmann et al., Metacognition and Learning, 11, 89–105, 2016, N = 47, published in Metacognition and Learning), perceptually disfluent texts facilitated retention and comprehension performance (but not transfer performance) only for learners with higher working memory capacity (WMC). No effects of WMC for a fluent text were found (albeit theoretically, fluency may be more advantageous for learners with lower WMC). The findings of our (pre-registered) direct replication (supervised online sample of N = 96) show a substantial deviation from the original results: In contrast to the interaction effect (disfluency and WMC) of the primary study, we obtained null results for disfluency, WMC, and their interaction for all learning outcomes. Our replication data are not indicative of WMC as a boundary condition moderating the disfluency effect on learning. We discuss discrepancies in the results of the primary study and our direct replication regarding particular methodological and analytical decisions, questioning the robustness and generalizability of Lehman et al.’s results beyond their primary study.","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09366-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to an aptitude-treatment interaction experiment (Lehmann et al., Metacognition and Learning, 11, 89–105, 2016, N = 47, published in Metacognition and Learning), perceptually disfluent texts facilitated retention and comprehension performance (but not transfer performance) only for learners with higher working memory capacity (WMC). No effects of WMC for a fluent text were found (albeit theoretically, fluency may be more advantageous for learners with lower WMC). The findings of our (pre-registered) direct replication (supervised online sample of N = 96) show a substantial deviation from the original results: In contrast to the interaction effect (disfluency and WMC) of the primary study, we obtained null results for disfluency, WMC, and their interaction for all learning outcomes. Our replication data are not indicative of WMC as a boundary condition moderating the disfluency effect on learning. We discuss discrepancies in the results of the primary study and our direct replication regarding particular methodological and analytical decisions, questioning the robustness and generalizability of Lehman et al.’s results beyond their primary study.

查看原文本刊更多论文

知觉错乱效应是否受工作记忆能力的调节？直接复制 Lehmann 等人（2016）

摘要根据一项能力倾向与处理相互作用的实验（Lehmann等人，《元认知与学习》，11, 89-105, 2016年，N = 47，发表于《元认知与学习》），感知不流畅的文本只对工作记忆能力（WMC）较高的学习者有促进保留和理解成绩（而不是迁移成绩）的作用。工作记忆容量对流畅文本没有影响（尽管从理论上讲，流畅文本可能对工作记忆容量较低的学习者更有利）。我们（预先注册的）直接复制（N = 96 的在线监督样本）的结果显示与原始结果有很大偏差：与原始研究中的交互效应（不流利和 WMC）形成对比的是，在所有学习结果中，不流利、WMC 及其交互效应的结果均为零。我们的复制数据并不表明 WMC 是调节不流畅对学习影响的边界条件。我们讨论了主要研究结果与我们直接复制的结果在特定方法和分析决定上的差异，质疑雷曼等人的结果在主要研究之外的稳健性和可推广性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Metacognition and Learning Multiple-

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

15.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills. Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed. Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices. One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.