Investigation of the effect of disfluency on memory by testing participants’s
recall of facts about Aliens read in differing fonts
Introduction
AIMS: The aim of the experiment was to look at the effects of disfluency on educational
outcomes. It aimed to replicate the key study of Diemand-Yauman (2010) in a controlled
environment using a sample of college students. The study investigated the impact of the
use of differing fonts in fluency and memory recall. Diemand-Yauman used his study to
provide evidence that making material harder to learn would increase the long-term
learning of students.
HYPOTHESES:
1. The experimental hypothesis was that the harder the font is to read, the more the
participants will remember and recall. Group A had the harder to read font, Group B
the easier to read font, therefore the participants in Group A should answer more
questions correctly than the participants in Group B. Previous research by
Oppenheimer suggests that people remember more after viewing harder to read
font, therefore the hypothesis is one-tailed.
2. The null hypotheses was that there will be no relationship seen between disfluency
(type of font) and memory, therefore no difference will be seen in the answers
between Group A and Group B.
Method
Design
An independent measures design was used for this study. This meant that one group of
participants was used for Condition A and a different group was used for Condition B. The
two groups were given a list of descriptions of three aliens, the only difference being the
font used on the lists. After a set amount of time, the participants in both groups were
asked a series of questions to test their recall of the aliens, and the number of correct
questions recorded.
The independent variable was the relative fluency or disfluency of the font used, and the
dependent variable was the number of questions the participants correctly answered.
One extraneous variable was the varying eyesight of the different participants, which could
have affected the ease of reading the different fonts. This was controlled by making sure
that any participant with poorer eyesight wore their glasses when taking part in the
experiment. Another confounding variable could have been the prior knowledge of each
participant. This was controlled by picking imaginary aliens as the subject so the students
were all learning the information for the first time.
, Sample
The target population were A level students in College. It was an opportunity sample, using
all the Psychology students in class on the particular day that the experiment was held, as
this was the most convenient method without disrupting other classes. There were 22
students in class that day, therefore easily split into the two different groups, 11 in Group A
and 11 in Group B. This was done by dividing the classroom so one half was Group A, the
other Group B. All were age 16 or over, and there was a mix of males and females.
Materials
A sheet of paper was given to each participant with a list of features of three alien species, ?
descriptors for each alien. The words were exactly the same on every participant’s list, and
in the same order, however those in Group A were given a list in a harder to read font than
the participants in Group B. Every participant also had a sheet of paper and pen to record
their answers.
The lists for Group A and B can be found in the appendices.
Procedure
Participants were first given a briefing with instructions. They were asked to learn about
three species of aliens from a written list, each of which had several features. They were
told they would be asked questions about the aliens later, from memory. All participants
were handed a paper list, Group A were given the list in harder to read font and Group B the
list in easier font. Participants were not told that there were differences between the lists.
All participants were given 90 seconds to try and remember the information on the lists, and
then instructed to turn the paper over so they could no longer read it. After a short delay
the experimenter read out ten questions about the aliens, and the participants recorded
their answers on their record sheet. The answers were then read out, and the participants
marked their answer sheets to get a score out of 10. The results were then gathered in and
compiled for each group. At the end a debrief was carried out, where the participants were
told about the differences in font.
Ethical Considerations
The participants were not fully informed as to the nature of the study, as it was important
they were not aware of the difference in font between the groups in case it caused bias and
affected the results. This could be seen as deception, however this did not harm the
participants and was justified, and they were debriefed afterwards as to the full nature of
the research.
The participants were told that their answers would be kept confidential and anonymous,
with no reference in the report to individual participants. They were free to withdraw from
recall of facts about Aliens read in differing fonts
Introduction
AIMS: The aim of the experiment was to look at the effects of disfluency on educational
outcomes. It aimed to replicate the key study of Diemand-Yauman (2010) in a controlled
environment using a sample of college students. The study investigated the impact of the
use of differing fonts in fluency and memory recall. Diemand-Yauman used his study to
provide evidence that making material harder to learn would increase the long-term
learning of students.
HYPOTHESES:
1. The experimental hypothesis was that the harder the font is to read, the more the
participants will remember and recall. Group A had the harder to read font, Group B
the easier to read font, therefore the participants in Group A should answer more
questions correctly than the participants in Group B. Previous research by
Oppenheimer suggests that people remember more after viewing harder to read
font, therefore the hypothesis is one-tailed.
2. The null hypotheses was that there will be no relationship seen between disfluency
(type of font) and memory, therefore no difference will be seen in the answers
between Group A and Group B.
Method
Design
An independent measures design was used for this study. This meant that one group of
participants was used for Condition A and a different group was used for Condition B. The
two groups were given a list of descriptions of three aliens, the only difference being the
font used on the lists. After a set amount of time, the participants in both groups were
asked a series of questions to test their recall of the aliens, and the number of correct
questions recorded.
The independent variable was the relative fluency or disfluency of the font used, and the
dependent variable was the number of questions the participants correctly answered.
One extraneous variable was the varying eyesight of the different participants, which could
have affected the ease of reading the different fonts. This was controlled by making sure
that any participant with poorer eyesight wore their glasses when taking part in the
experiment. Another confounding variable could have been the prior knowledge of each
participant. This was controlled by picking imaginary aliens as the subject so the students
were all learning the information for the first time.
, Sample
The target population were A level students in College. It was an opportunity sample, using
all the Psychology students in class on the particular day that the experiment was held, as
this was the most convenient method without disrupting other classes. There were 22
students in class that day, therefore easily split into the two different groups, 11 in Group A
and 11 in Group B. This was done by dividing the classroom so one half was Group A, the
other Group B. All were age 16 or over, and there was a mix of males and females.
Materials
A sheet of paper was given to each participant with a list of features of three alien species, ?
descriptors for each alien. The words were exactly the same on every participant’s list, and
in the same order, however those in Group A were given a list in a harder to read font than
the participants in Group B. Every participant also had a sheet of paper and pen to record
their answers.
The lists for Group A and B can be found in the appendices.
Procedure
Participants were first given a briefing with instructions. They were asked to learn about
three species of aliens from a written list, each of which had several features. They were
told they would be asked questions about the aliens later, from memory. All participants
were handed a paper list, Group A were given the list in harder to read font and Group B the
list in easier font. Participants were not told that there were differences between the lists.
All participants were given 90 seconds to try and remember the information on the lists, and
then instructed to turn the paper over so they could no longer read it. After a short delay
the experimenter read out ten questions about the aliens, and the participants recorded
their answers on their record sheet. The answers were then read out, and the participants
marked their answer sheets to get a score out of 10. The results were then gathered in and
compiled for each group. At the end a debrief was carried out, where the participants were
told about the differences in font.
Ethical Considerations
The participants were not fully informed as to the nature of the study, as it was important
they were not aware of the difference in font between the groups in case it caused bias and
affected the results. This could be seen as deception, however this did not harm the
participants and was justified, and they were debriefed afterwards as to the full nature of
the research.
The participants were told that their answers would be kept confidential and anonymous,
with no reference in the report to individual participants. They were free to withdraw from
