Combining ten-minute and 24-hour spaces was the most promising SMART Spaces variant in a small pilot RCT¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In a small randomised controlled trial comparing three spacing variants, Version 3, which combined 24-hour and ten-minute spacing, appeared to be the most promising variant for GCSE science attainment. → O'Hare et al. 2017
Evidence¶
O'Hare et al. 2017¶
Dr Liam O'Hare, Dr Patrick Stark, Professor Carol McGuinness, Dr Andy Biggart, Professor Allen Thurston. (2017). Spaced Learning: The Design, Feasibility and Optimisation of SMART Spaces — Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581430
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Small randomised controlled trial (the optimisation study) in 12 schools comparing three SMART Spaces variants against two controls on a GCSE science attainment measure. The report states Version 3 "appeared to be the most promising variant", explicitly framed as preliminary evidence.
"This suggested that Version 3— which combined 24- hour and ten -minute spacing —appeared to be the most promising variant."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Animal neuroscience studies show spaced stimulation produces greater long-term potentiation than massed stimulation — related
- SMART Spaces content showed a significant benefit over a no spaces/materials control, with ES g = 0.19 — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.