get="_self"> Serra, 2016a, 2016b for further criticisms). Research examining the effects of instructor fluency rather than perceptual fluency has utilized more realistic variations in students’ experience of fluency, but the setting has remained artificial (i.e., very short instructional videos with no extrinsic investment on the part of the participants; e.g., Carpenter et al., 2013; Carpenter et al., 2016; Sanchez & Khan, 2016; but see Williams & Ceci, 1997 ). To this end, the purpose of the present study was to determine whether instructor fluency is related to students’ evaluations of their learning in an actual course, much as occurs in more contrived laboratory experiments that have examined this question (e.g., Carpenter et al., 2013; Carpenter et al., 2016; Sanchez & Khan, 2016 ).
We found that students’ ratings of instructor fluency were correlated with their judgments of learning, various ratings of their instructor, and various ratings of the course and its topics. Importantly, these relationships maintained when we controlled for student’s actual performance in the course and occurred even though students had a semester’s worth of experience with the course and instructor (i.e., assignments; grades; within-instructor variations in fluency) that they could consider when making their judgments. These results suggest that instructor fluency is a major source of information that students factor into such judgments in both the laboratory and in the classroom. The present study therefore provides an important link between highly-contrived laboratory examinations of fluency effects and more genuine examinations of the relationship between fluency and students’ judgments of their learning, their instructors, and their courses.
The present findings are perhaps even more surprising when we consider that, in most concordant laboratory studies, participants made their judgments immediately after being exposed to either fluent or disfluent presenters or study materials. When the making of the judgment is delayed from the exposure to the materials in the laboratory, however, judgments of learning do not seem to show fluency effects (e.g., Hu, Liu, Li, & Luo, 2016 ). In contrast, participants in the present study made their judgments outside of the classroom and at a long temporal delay from most of their experience with the fluency of their instructors. Nevertheless, participants’ judgments in the present study were related to instructor fluency despite how much time had elapsed between their exposure to their instructors and their making of the present ratings. This suggests that instructor fluency in the classroom might exert a stronger or longer-lasting influence on students’ judgments of learning than might other forms of fluency (i.e., perceptual fluency).
Implications and Future Directions
Problematically, the relationship between instructor fluency and students’ judgments of their learning in actual courses seems very strong; the relationship occurs even though students likely have numerous other sources of information they can consult to judge their learning (or to rate the quality of their instructors and courses) and maintain when we control for actual grades earned in the course. If further research demonstrates that the experience of instructor fluency can impair the efficacy of students’ study behaviors in their courses, then applied researchers may have difficulty identifying methods to reduce students’ use of this heuristic. As we previously note, the general heuristic that the experience of fluency is associated with positive performance is pervasive (e.g., Fernandez-Duque et al., 2000; Jacoby et al., 1989; Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999; Reber et al., 2004; Vallacher & Nowak, 1999; Winkielman et al., 2003 ), so applied researchers may have to work particularly hard to eliminate its use by students in the context of learning.
In actual courses, the experience of high instructor fluency can lead students to overestimate their level of learning and under-prepare for exams (but see Carpenter et al., 2013 , Experiment 2), make poor restudy decisions (cf. Shanks & Serra, 2014 ), or even change their academic major (Stinebrickner & Stinebrickner, 2014) . Related, research indicates that students’ likelihood of communicating with instructors outside of the classroom (e.g., emailing an instructor with a question; attending office hours) is negatively correlated with their perception of instructor clarity (Sidelinger, Bolen, McMullen, & Nyeste, 2015) . Given such findings, researchers should identify relationships between instructor fluency and students’ study behaviors. Researchers should also consider whether instructor fluency biases students’ actual evaluations of their instructors and courses.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
|||Bertsch, S., Pesta, B. J., Wiscott, R., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The Generation Effect: A Meta-Analytic Review. Memory & Cognition, 35, 201-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193441|
|||Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings. In J. Metcalfe, & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.|
|||Carpenter, S. K., Mickes, L., Rahman, S., & Fernandez, C. (2016). The Effect of Instructor Fluency on Students’ Perceptions of Instructors, Confidence in Learning, and Actual Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000077|
|||Carpenter, S. K., Wilford, M. M., Kornell, N., & Mullaney, K. M. (2013). Appearances Can Be Deceiving: Instructor Fluency Increases Perceptions of Learning without Increasing Actual Learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1350- 1356. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0442-z|
|||Duarte, N. (2012). HBR Guide to Persuasive Presentations (pp. 155-160). Harvard Business Press.|
|||Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (2014). Understanding People’s Metacognitive Judgments: An Ismechanism Framework and Its Implications for Applied and Theoretical Research. In T. Perfect, & S. Lindsay (Eds.). Handbook of Applied Memory (pp. 444-464). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446294703.n25|
|||Eitel, A., Kuhl, T., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Disfluency Meets Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning: DOES harder-to-Read Mean Better-to-Understand? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 488-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3004|
|||Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive Attention and Metacognitive Regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0447|
|||Finn, B., & Tauber, S. K. (2015). When Confidence Is Not a Signal of Knowing: How Students’ Experiences and Beliefs about Processing Fluency Can Lead to Miscalibrated Confidence. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 567-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9313-7|
|||Hirshman, E., & Bjork, R. A. (1988). The Generation Effect: Support for a Two-Factor Theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 484-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-73126.96.36.1994|
|||Hu, X., Liu, Z., Li, T., & Luo, L. (2016). Influence of Cue Word Perceptual Information on Metamemory Accuracy in Judg- ment of Learning. Memory, in press|
|||Jackson-Beeck, M., & Meadow, R. G. (1979). Content Analysis of Televised Communication Events: The Presidential Debates. Communication Research, 6, 321-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365027900600304|
|||Jacoby, L., Kelley, C., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory Attributions. Varieties of Memory and Consciousness: Essays in Honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 391-422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.|
|||Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring One’s Own Knowledge during Study: A Cue-Utilization Approach to Judgments of Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-34188.8.131.529|
|||Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of Competence in Monitoring One’s Knowledge during Study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 187-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-73184.108.40.206|
|||Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive Load and Science Text Comprehension: Effects of Drawing and Mentally Imaging Text Content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010|
|||Magreehan, D. A., Serra, M. J., Schwartz, N. H., & Narciss, S. (2016). Further Boundary Conditions for the Effects of Perceptual Disfluency on Judgments of Learning. Metacognition and Learning, 11, 35-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9147-1|
|||Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2014). The Font-Size Effect on Judgments of Learning: Does It Exemplify Fluency Effects or Reflect People’s Beliefs about Memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007|
|||Naftulin, D. H., Ware Jr., J. E., & Donnelly, F. A. (1973). The Doctor Fox Lecture: A Paradigm of Educational Seduction. Academic Medicine, 48, 630-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197307000-00003|
|||Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 15-51.|
|||Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3|
|||Reder, L. M., & Ritter, F. E. (1992). What Determines Initial Feeling of Knowing? Familiarity with Question Terms, Not with the Answer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 435-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-73220.127.116.115|
|||Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory Predictions Are Influenced by Perceptual Information: Evidence for Meta-Cognitive Illusions. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 137, 615-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013684|
|||Sanchez, C. A., & Khan, S. (2016). Instructor Accents in Online Education and Their Effect on Learning and Attitudes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12149|
|||Serra, M. J. (2016a). Does Processing Fluency Really Matter for Metacognition in Actual Learning Situations? Part One: Fluency in the Laboratory. http://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/|
|||Serra, M. J. (2016b). Does Processing Fluency Really Matter for Metacognition in Actual Learning Situations? Part Two: Fluency in the Classroom. http://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/|
|||Serra, M. J., & Ariel, R. (2014). People Use the Memory for Past-Test Heuristic as an Explicit Cue for Judgments of Learning. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1260-1272. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0431-0|
|||Serra, M. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Effective Implementation of Metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition and Education (pp. 278-298). New York: Routledge.|
|||Shanks, L. L., & Serra, M. J. (2014). Domain Familiarity as a Cue for Judgments of Learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 445-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0513-1|
|||Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., McMullen, A. L., & Nyeste, M. C. (2015). Academic and Social Integration in the Basic Communication Course: Predictors of Students’ Out-of-Class Communication and Academic Learning. Communication Studies, 66, 63-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.856807|
|||Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4, 592-604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7318.104.22.1682|
|||Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2014). A Major in Science? Initial Beliefs and Final Outcomes for College Major and Dropout. The Review of Economic Studies, 81, 426-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt025|
|||Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and Metamemory for Inverted Words: Illusions of Competency and Desirable Difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 973-978. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0114-9|
|||Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (1999). The Dynamics of Self-Regulation. In R. R. Wyer (Ed.), Perspectives on Behavioral Self-Regulation: Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. XII (pp. 241-259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.|
|||Werth, L., & Strack, F. (2003). An Inferential Approach to the Knew-It-All-Along Phenomenon. Memory, 11, 411-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000586|
|||Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). “How’m I Doing?” Problems with Student Ratings of Instructors and Courses. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29, 12-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389709602331|
|||Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R. (2003). The Hedonic Marking of Processing Fluency: Implications for Evaluative Judgment. In J. Musch, & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The Psychology of Evaluations. Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion (pp. 189-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.|
|||Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When Disfluency Is—And Is Not—A Desirable Difficulty: The Influence of Typeface Clarity on Metacognitive Judgments and Memory. Memory & Cognition, 41, 229-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8|
Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.