Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties

Subsequent recall is improved if students try to recall target material during study (self-testing) versus simply re-reading it. This effect is consistent with the notion of “desirable difficulties.” If the learning experience involves difficulties that induce extra effort, then retention may be imp...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Elizabeth L. Wetzler, Aryn A. Pyke, Adam Werner
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	SAGE Publishing 2021
Materias:	History of scholarship and learning. The humanities AZ20-999 Social Sciences H
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/9db1b148e6c94292b1107f2aa697da05
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:9db1b148e6c94292b1107f2aa697da05
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:9db1b148e6c94292b1107f2aa697da052021-11-16T00:33:23ZSans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties2158-244010.1177/21582440211056624https://doaj.org/article/9db1b148e6c94292b1107f2aa697da052021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211056624https://doaj.org/toc/2158-2440Subsequent recall is improved if students try to recall target material during study (self-testing) versus simply re-reading it. This effect is consistent with the notion of “desirable difficulties.” If the learning experience involves difficulties that induce extra effort, then retention may be improved. Not all difficulties are desirable, however. Difficult-to-read ( disfluent ) typefaces yield inconsistent results. A new disfluent font, Sans Forgetica, was developed and alleged to promote deeper processing and improve learning. Although it would be invaluable if changing the font could enhance learning, the few studies on Sans Forgetica have been inconsistent, and focused on short retention intervals (0–5 minutes). We investigated a 1-week interval to increase practical relevance and because some benefits only manifest after a delay. A testing-effect manipulation was also included. Students ( N = 120) learned two passages via different methods (study then re-study vs. study then self-test). Half the students saw the passages in Times New Roman and half in Sans Forgetica. Recall test scores were higher for passages learned via self-testing than restudying, but the effect of font and the interaction were nonsignificant. We suggest that disfluency increases the local (orthographic) processing effort on each word but slowed reading might impair relational processing across words. In contrast, testing and generation effect manipulations often engage relational processing (question: answer; cue: target)—yielding subsequent benefits on cued-recall tests. We elaborate this suggestion to reconcile conflicting results across studies.Elizabeth L. WetzlerAryn A. PykeAdam WernerSAGE PublishingarticleHistory of scholarship and learning. The humanitiesAZ20-999Social SciencesHENSAGE Open, Vol 11 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	History of scholarship and learning. The humanities AZ20-999 Social Sciences H
spellingShingle	History of scholarship and learning. The humanities AZ20-999 Social Sciences H Elizabeth L. Wetzler Aryn A. Pyke Adam Werner Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties
description	Subsequent recall is improved if students try to recall target material during study (self-testing) versus simply re-reading it. This effect is consistent with the notion of “desirable difficulties.” If the learning experience involves difficulties that induce extra effort, then retention may be improved. Not all difficulties are desirable, however. Difficult-to-read ( disfluent ) typefaces yield inconsistent results. A new disfluent font, Sans Forgetica, was developed and alleged to promote deeper processing and improve learning. Although it would be invaluable if changing the font could enhance learning, the few studies on Sans Forgetica have been inconsistent, and focused on short retention intervals (0–5 minutes). We investigated a 1-week interval to increase practical relevance and because some benefits only manifest after a delay. A testing-effect manipulation was also included. Students ( N = 120) learned two passages via different methods (study then re-study vs. study then self-test). Half the students saw the passages in Times New Roman and half in Sans Forgetica. Recall test scores were higher for passages learned via self-testing than restudying, but the effect of font and the interaction were nonsignificant. We suggest that disfluency increases the local (orthographic) processing effort on each word but slowed reading might impair relational processing across words. In contrast, testing and generation effect manipulations often engage relational processing (question: answer; cue: target)—yielding subsequent benefits on cued-recall tests. We elaborate this suggestion to reconcile conflicting results across studies.
format	article
author	Elizabeth L. Wetzler Aryn A. Pyke Adam Werner
author_facet	Elizabeth L. Wetzler Aryn A. Pyke Adam Werner
author_sort	Elizabeth L. Wetzler
title	Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties
title_short	Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties
title_full	Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties
title_fullStr	Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties
title_full_unstemmed	Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties
title_sort	sans forgetica is not the “font” of knowledge: disfluent fonts are not always desirable difficulties
publisher	SAGE Publishing
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/9db1b148e6c94292b1107f2aa697da05
work_keys_str_mv	AT elizabethlwetzler sansforgeticaisnotthefontofknowledgedisfluentfontsarenotalwaysdesirabledifficulties AT arynapyke sansforgeticaisnotthefontofknowledgedisfluentfontsarenotalwaysdesirabledifficulties AT adamwerner sansforgeticaisnotthefontofknowledgedisfluentfontsarenotalwaysdesirabledifficulties
_version_	1718426802012028928

Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties

Ejemplares similares