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)

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":"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)","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11409-023-09366-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>According to an aptitude-treatment interaction experiment (Lehmann et al., <em>Metacognition and Learning,</em> <em>11,</em> 89–105, <span>2016</span>, <em>N</em> = 47, published in <em>Metacognition and Learning</em>), 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 <em>N</em> = 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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> <p>According to an aptitude-treatment interaction experiment (Lehmann et al., <em>Metacognition and Learning,</em> <em>11,</em> 89–105, <span>2016</span>, <em>N</em> = 47, published in <em>Metacognition and Learning</em>), 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 <em>N</em> = 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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

摘要

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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is the perceptual disfluency effect moderated by working memory capacity? Direct replication of Lehmann et al. (2016)

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
15.20%
发文量
39
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.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge exploration among students: role of feedback, feeling of confidence, and academic motivation Self-regulated strategy development’s effectiveness: underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms Development of metacognitive monitoring and control skills in elementary school: a latent profile approach Metacognitive reflections on essentialism during the learning of the relationship between biology and the human race On the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory: inferential, direct access, or indirect access?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1