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.Keywords Metacognition . Memory . Overconfidence . Processing ease . FluencyIn order to learn effectively, individuals must be able to accurately assess their own knowledge. Being able to recognize what one knows-and does not know-is an essential step when deciding what information needs to be learned (e.g

When participants answer a test question and then receive feedback of the correct answer, studies have shown that the feedback is more effective when it is delayed by several seconds rather than provided immediately (e.g., Brackbill & Kappy, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 14-18, 1962; Schroth, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 78-82, 1992). Despite several demonstrations of this delay-of-feedback benefit, a theoretical explanation for this finding has not yet been developed. The present study tested the hypothesis that brief delays of feedback are beneficial because they encourage anticipation of the upcoming feedback. In Experiment 1, participants answered obscure trivia questions, and before receiving the answer, they rated their curiosity to know the answer. The answer was then provided either immediately or after a 4-s delay. A later final test over the same questions revealed a significant delay-of-feedback benefit, but only for items that had been rated high in curiosity. Experiment 2 replicated this same effect and showed that the delay-of-feedback benefit only occurs when feedback is provided after a variable, unpredictable time duration (either 2, 4, or 8 s) rather than after a constant duration (always 4 s). These findings demonstrate that the delay-of-feedback effect appears to be greatest under conditions in which participants are curious to know the answer and when the answer is provided after an unpredictable time interval.

Recent work has questioned whether the negativity bias is a distinct component of affective picture processing. The current study was designed to determine whether there are different neural correlates of processing positive and negative pictures using event-related brain potentials. The early posterior negativity and late positive potential were greatest in amplitude for erotic pictures. Partial Least Squares analysis revealed one latent variable that distinguished erotic pictures from neutral and positive pictures and another that differentiated negative pictures from neutral and positive pictures. The effects of orienting task on the neural correlates of processing negative and erotic pictures indicate that affective picture processing is sensitive to both stimulus-driven, and attentional or decision processes. The current data, together with other recent findings from our laboratory, lead to the suggestion that there are distinct neural correlates of processing negative and positive stimuli during affective picture processing.

When students are tested, delaying feedback of the correct answer by a few seconds is more beneficial than providing it immediately (e.g., Brackbill & Kappy, 1962). The current study refers to this effect as the delay-of-feedback benefit. Little is known about the theoretical nature of the delay-of-feedback benefit. The current study investigated the hypothesis that a delay of feedback is beneficial because it allows a learner to anticipate-i.e., look forward to, or devote attentional resources to-the feedback when it arrives. Participants were asked a list of obscure trivia questions. Immediately after answering each question they were asked to indicate how curious they were to know the answer (on a scale of 1-6), which was then presented to them immediately or after a delay of a few seconds. A final test given several minutes later revealed better memory for items that had previously received delayed feedback compared to immediate feedback, but only under conditions in which participants expressed high curiosity to know the answer. No delay-of-feedback benefit ever occurred for items that received low curiosity ratings. This interaction between feedback timing and curiosity was obtained in Experiment 1 in which immediate vs. delayed feedback was manipulated within-subjects. Experiment 2 manipulated feedback timing betweensubjects and obtained this same interaction only when the duration of the delay was varied (i.e., either 2, 4, or 8 seconds) rather than constant (i.e., always 4 seconds). These results demonstrate that participants are most likely to benefit from delayed feedback when they are curious about the answer, and when they are uncertain about exactly when the answer will appear.

No abstract