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 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.

Prior episodic learning and the efficacy of retrieval practice

In three experiments we investigated how the level of study-based, episodic knowledge influences the efficacy of subsequent retrieval practice (testing) as a learning event. Possibilities are that the efficacy of a test, relative to a restudy control, decreases, increases, or is independent of the degree of prior study-based learning. The degree of study-based learning was manipulated by varying the number of item repetitions in the initial study phase between one and eight. Predictions of the dual-memory model of test-enhanced learning for the case of one study-phase repetition were used as a reference. Results support the hypothesis that the advantage of testing over restudy is independent of the degree of prior episodic learning, and they suggest that educators can apply cued-recall testing with the expectation that its efficacy is similar across varying levels of prior content learning. Implications for testing effect theory are discussed.

The Effect of Forward Testing as a Function of Test Occasions and Study Material

It has long been known that one of the most effective study techniques is to be tested on the to-be-remembered material, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. Recent research has also shown that testing of previous materials promotes the learning of new materials, a phenomenon known as the forward testing effect. In this paper, as of yet unexplored aspects of the forward testing effect related to face-name learning are examined; continuous and initial testing are compared to restudying, the effects of an initial test on subsequent learning, and whether an initial change of domain (change from one topic to another) regarding study material affects the robustness of the effect. An experiment (N = 94) was performed according to a 2 (Material: word pairs/face-name pairs in Block 1) × 3 (Test occasions: Blocks 1–4/Blocks 1 and 4/Block 4) complex between-groups design. The results showed that no difference between testing and repetition could be observed regarding the recall of faces and names. The restudy groups incorrectly recalled more names from previous lists in the last interim test compared to the tested groups, which supports the theory that interim tests reduce proactive interference. The results also suggest that the number of test occasions correlates with the number of incorrect recalls from previous lists. These results, in contrast to previous studies, highlight a potential uncertainty about the forward testing effect linked to the robustness of the phenomenon, the specificity in execution, and generalizability.

Learning new word meanings from story reading: the benefit of immediate testing

This study investigated how word meanings can be learned from natural story reading. Three experiments with adult participants compared naturalistic incidental learning with intentional learning of new meanings for familiar words, and examined the role of immediate tests in maintaining memory of new word meanings. In Experiment 1, participants learned new meanings for familiar words through incidental (story reading) and intentional (definition training task) conditions. Memory was tested with cued recall of meanings and multiple-choice meaning-to-word matching immediately and 24 h later. Results for both measures showed higher accuracy for intentional learning, which was also more time efficient than incidental learning. However, there was reasonably good learning from both methods, and items learned incidentally through stories appeared less susceptible to forgetting over 24 h. It was possible that retrieval practice at the immediate test may have aided learning and improved memory of new word meanings 24 h later, especially for the incidental story reading condition. Two preregistered experiments then examined the role of immediate testing in long-term retention of new meanings for familiar words. There was a strong testing effect for word meanings learned through intentional and incidental conditions (Experiment 2), which was non-significantly larger for items learned incidentally through stories. Both cued recall and multiple-choice tests were each individually sufficient to enhance retention compared to having no immediate test (Experiment 3), with a larger learning boost from multiple-choice. This research emphasises (i) the resilience of word meanings learned incidentally through stories and (ii) the key role that testing can play in boosting vocabulary learning from story reading.