title: Appearances can be deceiving: instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actual learning.
abstract: The present study explored the effects of lecture fluency on students' metacognitive awareness and regulation. Participants watched one of two short videos of an instructor explaining a scientific concept. In the fluent video, the instructor stood upright, maintained eye contact, and spoke fluidly without notes. In the disfluent video, the instructor slumped, looked away, and spoke haltingly with notes. After watching the video, participants in Experiment 1 were asked to predict how much of the content they would later be able to recall, and participants in Experiment 2 were given a text-based script of the video to study. Perceived learning was significantly higher for the fluent instructor than for the disfluent instructor (Experiment 1), although study time was not significantly affected by lecture fluency (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the fluent instructor was rated significantly higher than the disfluent instructor on traditional instructor evaluation questions, such as preparedness and effectiveness. However, in both experiments, lecture fluency did not significantly affect the amount of information learned. Thus, students' perceptions of their own learning and an instructor's effectiveness appear to be based on lecture fluency and not on actual learning.
authors: Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA, 50011, USA, shacarp@iastate.edu.
authors: Shana K
authors: SK
authors: Carpenter
authors: Miko M
authors: MM
authors: Wilford
authors: Nate
authors: N
authors: Kornell
authors: Kellie M
authors: KM
authors: Mullaney
mesh_terms: D003071:Cognition; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning; D010465:Perception; D012649:Self Concept; D013334:Students / Q000523:psychology*
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Jan;28(1):69-80
references: 11827088
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Mar;31(2):187-94
references: 15755238
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Oct;18(5):1015-21
references: 21735331
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Nov;137(4):615-25
references: 18999356
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Sep;1(3):357-75
references: 24203520
references: Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009 Jun 1;18(3):159-163
references: 19750138
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 May;32(3):609-22
references: 16719670
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Jun;12(6):237-41
references: 18468944
references: J Med Educ. 1975 Feb;50(2):149-56
references: 1120118
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Feb;14(1):107-11
references: 17546739
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Nov;136(4):569-76
references: 17999571
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Jan;33(1):238-44
references: 17201565
references: Memory. 2010 Oct;18(7):698-711
references: 20730677
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Jan;38(1):92-101
references: 21787105
references: J Med Educ. 1973 Jul;48(7):630-5
references: 4708420
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998 Mar;127(1):55-68
references: 9503651
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Jun;131(2):147-62
references: 12049237
references: Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(6):748-56
references: 10689050
references: Cognition. 2011 Jan;118(1):111-5
references: 21040910
references: Memory. 2009 Jul;17(5):493-501
references: 19468957
references: Psychol Sci. 2011 Jun;22(6):787-94
references: 21551341
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 Nov;138(4):449-68
references: 19883130
references: Mem Cognit. 2010 Jun;38(4):431-40
references: 20516223